In our
latest podcast, (left to right) editors Henry See,
Scott Ogrin, and Joe Quinn discuss the similarities
between that fateful August of four years ago and this
year.
The population of the United States is becoming ever
more polarised with the recent revival of the anti-war
movement inspired by Cindy Sheehan while the right-wing
war nuts have started attacking protesters and screaming
that they are "aiding and abetting" the enemy.
Bush's popularity is reaching new lows, much like
four years ago. What new Significant Event will Karl
Rove pull out of his bag of dirty, terrorist tricks
to save the "Commander-in-Chief"?
Below are some of the articles cited so that you can
read the material yourselves.
If you have any questions for the Signs Team or would
like to suggest a topic for future PodCast discussion,
you can write us at:
For
the first time, the Signs Team's most popular and discerning
essays have been compiled into book form and thematically
organized.
These books contain hard hitting exposés into
human nature, propaganda, psyop activities and insights
into the world events that shape our future and our
understanding of the world.
The six new books, available now at our bookstore,
are entitled:
Last Updated Thu, 25 Aug 2005
21:06:37 EDT
CBC News
A couple is being protected by police
after their home was wrongly identified on Fox News as
belonging to an Islamic radical.
After the report aired on Aug.7, people
have shouted profanities at Randy and Ronnell Vorick,
taken photos of their house, and spray-painted "terrorist" (misspelling
it "terrist") on their property.
"I'm scared to go to work and leave
my kids home. I call them every 30 minutes to make sure
they're OK," Randy Vorick said.
John Loftus, a former federal prosecutor who appears
on the Fox News segment "Inside Scoop with John
Loftus," gave out the Voricks' address during the
broadcast.
He said, however, that the home belonged to Iyad Hilal,
whose group, Loftus said, has ties to those responsible
for the July 7 bombings in London.
But Hilal moved out of the house about
three years ago.
Since the day after the broadcast, police have patrolled
the Voricks' house, and have kept a squad car across
the street. Police Capt. John Rees said the department
is "giving special attention to the family to make
sure they're safe."
The couple sought a public apology and correction.
"John Loftus has been reprimanded
for his careless error, and we sincerely apologize to
the family," said Fox spokeswoman Irena Brigante.
Loftus also apologized and told the
Los Angeles Times last week that "mistakes happen.
... That was the best information we had at the time."
The FBI has launched an inquiry into the activities
of Hilal, a grocery store owner who is allegedly the
U.S. leader of Hizb ut-Tahrir, which has been banned
in parts of Europe and the Middle East.
Hilal, 56, is apparently not suspected of any terrorist
acts, but FBI terrorism investigators want to know more
about his and the group's activities.
Comment: This is the stuff of vigilantes,
of taking the law into your own hands. Imagine broadcasting
the address of someone, even if he was connected to a
bombing. Isn't it the role of the police to handle such
a case?
But the man identified on Fox "News" is not
even suspected of any terrorist acts, and he no longer
lives in the house.
Mr. Loftus, acting as one of far too many in-house vigilantes
at Fox "News", moves from the usual ring-wing
hate rhetoric to hate act when he gives out the address.
To do such a thing is to incite his listeners to get
involved, and, after years of calling liberals traitors
who should be shot for supporting the "terrists",
what kind of emotion do we expect to be produced when
Loftus falsely declares a real, bone fide, "terrist" is
living in California and broadcasts where to find him?
A fear-primed public will terrorise the innocent victim.
It's like clockwork.
And all it takes it one crazy to go further than spray-paint
or insults and decide "to deal with them terrists" himself
for an innocent man, woman, or child to die.
Sure, Loftus apologises.
"Mistakes happen. That was the best information
we had at the time."
Sound familiar?
"There are WMD in Iraq. Saddam purchased uranium
from Niger. Saddam was behind 9/11. The people living
in that house over there are terrorists. Mistakes happen.
Get over it."
But here, we know, or at least have an idea that it
is very highly probable, that the London bombings were
the work of British intelligence, MI5. We know that people
of Middle East, Central Asian, and, in the case of Jean
Charles de Menezes, Brazilian, descent are targeted as
the patsies in order to stir up racial hatred, distrust,
and fear. The propaganda whipped up by Fox "News" and
its ilk since 9/11 is generating negative energy, and
that energy will have to be manifested one way or another.
It will express itself.
Stepping back and looking at how the scenario has developed,
it even looks as if it was planned:
First, 9/11. Galvanise the population into hatred and
anger towards Muslims, Arabs, and other from the Middle
East and Asia.
Second, play on the great threat to the US from these
forces. Make the population feel that they could be anywhere,
even your neighbour.
Third, attack people who disagree by portraying them
as the lackeys and patsies of the "terrorists".
Portray them as do-gooders who don't understand the real
world, who don't understand that the enemy will stop
at nothing to conquer us, and that, therefore, we must
respond in kind or be annihilated. Build up the rhetoric
over a period of years, taking it up one notch at a time,
until the link "dissenter=terrorist" is automatic.
Fourth, arrange an economic crisis in order to increase
the pressure on the population. Arrange it so that people
feel that their very way of life is under attack, not
just in words, but by turning the screws ever tighter.
Fifth, at the same time, insist that everything is going
well. In this way, individuals who are not making ends
meet will internalise their problems and say "If
the economy is doing so well, then I must be the problem."
Sixth, choose the moment for the fatal blow. Arrange
it so that it can be blamed on the chosen target, in
this case the Arabs (terrorism, oil), and allow the public
to give vent to their anger, fear, and hatred to take
out any internal opposition at home.
In another synchronous moment, we have just received
the following from a member of the QFS. He points us
to this recent statement from the people at urbansurvival.com,
a group with web bots that patrol the net analysing data
to get a sense for current tendencies and how they might
develop. They write, in a piece on Cindy Sheehan:
What's so amazing to us - verging on mind boggling
- is that while our technology doesn't get the precise presentation
of the future, it does get the general outline close
enough so that we know where to follow along and what
to cover. Emotionally, we're not taken by surprise,
either. We're pleased as hell that the next run should
give us insight into the huge emotional tension
starting to build now and which the time-piercing technology
reports is scheduled for release around the first week
of December.
This feeling of emotional tension is also what we are
reading from our daily browsing of the Internet, though
we have to resort to our own senses and aren't relying
on web bots.
By E&P Staff
Published: August 24, 2005 4:20 PM ET
NEW YORK The American Legion,
which has 2.7 million members, has declared war on
antiwar protestors, and the media could be next. Speaking
at its national convention in Honolulu, the group's
national commander called for an end to all “public
protests” and “media events” against
the war, even though they are protected by the Bill
of Rights.
"The American Legion will stand against anyone
and any group that would demoralize our troops, or worse,
endanger their lives by encouraging terrorists to continue
their cowardly attacks against freedom-loving peoples," Thomas
Cadmus, national commander, told delegates at the group's
national convention in Honolulu.
The delegates voted to use whatever
means necessary to "ensure the united backing of
the American people to support our troops and the global
war on terrorism."
In his speech, Cadmus declared: "It would be tragic
if the freedoms our veterans fought so valiantly to protect
would be used against their successors today as they
battle terrorists bent on our destruction.”
He explained, "No one respects
the right to protest more than one who has fought for
it, but we hope that Americans will present their views
in correspondence to their elected officials rather than
by public media events guaranteed to be picked up and
used as tools of encouragement by our enemies." This
might suggest to some, however, that American freedoms
are worth dying for but not exercising.
Without mentioning any current protestor, such as Cindy
Sheehan, by name, Cadmus recalled: "For many of
us, the visions of Jane Fonda glibly spouting anti-American
messages with the North Vietnamese and protestors denouncing
our own forces four decades ago is forever etched in
our memories. We must never let that happen again….
"We had hoped that the lessons
learned from the Vietnam War would be clear to our fellow
citizens. Public protests against the war here at home
while our young men and women are in harm's way on the
other side of the globe only provide aid and comfort
to our enemies."
Resolution 3, which was passed unanimously by 4,000
delegates to the annual event, states: "The American
Legion fully supports the president of the United States,
the United States Congress and the men, women and leadership
of our armed forces as they are engaged in the global
war on terrorism and the troops who are engaged in protecting
our values and way of life."
Cadmus advised: "Let's not repeat the mistakes
of our past. I urge all Americans to rally around our
armed forces and remember our fellow Americans who were
viciously murdered on Sept. 11, 2001."
Comment: The only way to truly honour
those sacrificed to a vengeful and arrogant false God,
Yahweh, on 9/11 is to demand that the truth be brought
to light. Only by standing up and demanding that the
true criminals be brought to justice can the American
people, as well as those of the rest of the world who
are being dragged into Bush's phony "war on terror",
unmask the crime of that day and honour the memory of
those who died to justify the death of tens of thousands
of others.
The truth is a reward in itself. There is no higher
or nobler goal.
Unfortunately, in our world, the truth is not a priority.
We start by lying to ourselves so often it becomes a
habit, and then we continue the lying in our relationships
with others. We do it to others; they do it to us. It
is standard operating procedure for everyone. Our entire "civilisation" is
built on lies. We can't even say that somewhere along
the line we took a wrong turn, because that would imply
that it might have be other than what it is. Our world
is a reflection of our own inner state. It is a soulless
world because we ourselves are soulless. It is a world
of lies and sex and power because that is who we are,
those are our fundamental values. The few who wish to
be different are too few to change the forest, and they
are often lost so deeply in the forest that they have
no idea which direction to follow to get out.
So which way is the exit? Towards the truth, the truth
of each of us an individuals and the truth of our society
as a whole. We must know the truth about ourselves, about
the people in our lives, the relationships we are in,
our family. If we do not know ourselves, how can we be
ourselves for our mates, our children, our friends. If
we are playing roles, meeting expectations, reacting
to the demands of others, rather than acting in our own
real interests -- real in the sense of permanent and
eternal and having to do with our souls -- can we be
surprised that our relationships are full of suffering?
And that the world will mirror that suffering?
By KATHLEEN HENNESSEY
Associated Press
August 23, 2005
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Supporters
of President Bush clashed with anti-war activists as
they wound their way through California after rallying
in the hometown of Cindy Sheehan, the mother who started
a protest camp outside Bush's Texas ranch.
Conservative activists and military families embarked
on the tour Monday, calling it "You don't speak
for me, Cindy!" A verbal confrontation erupted
when the caravan arrived in Sacramento and was met
by anti-war protesters chanting for Bush to bring
home the troops.
Sheehan supporter Dan Elliott, 71, confronted caravan
members by waving a sign reading "Death is not
support" and heckling one of the tour's organizers
as she addressed the crowd.
"You are ruining the morale over there," responded
Greg Parkinson, a Bush supporter.
Sheehan began her protest vigil Aug. 6 on the road
leading to Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, an act
that has encouraged anti-war activists to join her
and prompted peace vigils nationwide. Sheehan's 24-year-old
son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, was killed last year
in
Iraq.
The pro-Bush caravan planned rallies in several
California cities before heading to Crawford, where
Sheehan opponents have formed their own camp.
"It's time to lay down the anger. We need to
continue to uphold those people over there, to uphold
those men and women with their boots on the ground," said
Deborah Johns of the Northern California Marine Moms,
who helped organize the caravan and addressed supporters
outside the Vacaville Reporter newspaper in Sheehan's
hometown.
Some caravan members called
the anti-war protesters communists and said they
were "aiding and abetting the enemy." Those
comments enraged Sheehan supporter Dee Ann Heath,
who said she has two sons serving in Iraq and another
preparing to leave.
"I don't support the war, but I support my
sons," she said. "I simply want them to
come home."
In Vacaville, Toni Colip, 50, said her son, David,
went to high school with Casey Sheehan and is now
in the Marines, although not in Iraq. She said her
son opposes Sheehan's activities and has asked her
to support his military service even if he is injured
or killed.
"He said, 'Don't dishonor me, don't walk on
my grave,'" Colip said.
Sheehan vowed to remain in Texas until Bush agreed
to meet with her or until his monthlong vacation
ended Sept. 3, but she flew to Los Angeles last week
after her 74-year-old mother had a stroke. She is
expected to return to Texas in a few days.
On Monday, Bush was in Salt Lake City, where he
spoke to a national veterans group to rally support
for the war. Bush has said
he sympathizes with Sheehan, but a White House spokeswoman
said he did not plan to change his schedule and meet
with her.
Comment: Don't have anything intelligent
or factual to use in a debate with your opponent? Why,
just label them communists and traitors!
So, what does Ms. Sheehan think about all of this?
"ICH" -- The media
are wrong. The people who have come out to Camp Casey
to help coordinate the press and events with me are
not putting words in my mouth, they are taking words
out of my mouth. I have been known for sometime as
a person who speaks the truth and speaks it strongly.
I have always called a liar a liar and a hypocrite
a hypocrite. Now I am urged to use softer language
to appeal to a wider audience. Why do my friends at
Camp Casey think they are there? Why did such a big
movement occur from such a small action on August 6,
2005?
I haven't had much time to analyze the Camp Casey
phenomena. I just read that I gave 250 interviews
in less than a week's time. I believe it. I would
go to bed with a raw throat every night. I got pretty
tired of answering some questions, like: "What
do you want to say to the President?" and "Do
you really think he will meet with you?" However,
since my mom has been sick I have had a chance to
step back and ponder the flood gates that I opened
in Crawford, Tx.
I just read an article posted today on LewRockwell.com
by artist Robert Shetterly who painted my portrait.
The article reminded me of something I said at the
Veteran's for Peace Convention the night before I
set out to Bush's ranch in my probably futile quest
for the truth. This is what I said:
I got an email the other day and
it said, "Cindy if you didn't use so much profanity
... there's people on the fence that get offended.
And you know what I said? "You know what? You
know what, god damn it? How in the world is anybody
still sitting on that fence?
If you fall on the side that is
pro-George and pro-war, you get your ass over to
Iraq, and take the place of somebody who wants to
come home. And if you fall on the side that is against
this war and against George Bush, stand up and speak
out.
This is what the Camp Casey miracle is all about.
American citizens who oppose the war but never had
a conduit for their disgust and dismay are dropping
everything and traveling to Crawford to stand in
solidarity with us who have made a commitment to
sit outside of George's ranch for the duration of
the miserable Texan August. If they can't come to
Texas, they are attending vigils, writing letters
to their elected officials and to their local newspapers;
they are setting up Camp Casey branches in their
hometowns; they are sending flowers, cards, letters,
gifts, and donations here to us at Camp Casey. We
are so grateful for all of the support, but I think
pro-peace Americans are grateful for something to
do, finally.
One thing I haven't noticed or become aware of though
is an increased number of pro-war, pro-Bush people
on the other side of the fence enlisting to go and
fight George Bush's war for imperialism and insatiable
greed. The pro-peace side has gotten off their apathetic
butts to be warriors for peace and justice. Where
are the pro-war people? Everyday at Camp Casey we
have a couple of anti-peace people on the other side
of the road holding up signs that remind me that "Freedom
isn't Free" but I don't see them putting their
money where their mouths are. I
don't think they are willing to pay even a small
down payment for freedom by sacrificing their own
blood or the flesh of their children. I
still challenge them to go to Iraq and let another
soldier come home. Perhaps a soldier that is on his/her
third tour of duty, or one that has been stop-lossed
after serving his/her country nobly and selflessly,
only to be held hostage in Iraq by power mad hypocrites
who have a long history of avoiding putting their
own skin in the game.
Contrary to what the main stream media thinks, I
did not just fall off a pumpkin truck in Crawford,
Tx. on that scorchingly hot day two weeks ago. I
have been writing, speaking, testifying in front
of Congressional committees, lobbying Congress, and
doing interviews for over a year now. I have
been pretty well known in the progressive, peace
community and I had many, many supporters before
I even left California. The people who supported
me did so because they know that I uncompromisingly
tell the truth about this war. I have stood up and
said: "My son died for NOTHING, and George Bush
and his evil cabal and their reckless policies killed
him. My son was sent to fight in a war that had no
basis in reality and was killed for it." I
have never said "pretty please" or "thank
you." I have never said anything wishy-washy
like he uses "Patriotic Rhetoric."I
say my son died for LIES. George Bush LIED to us
and he knew he was LYING. The Downing Street Memos
dated 23 July, 2002 prove that he knew that Saddam
didn't have WMD's or any ties to Al Qaeda. I
believe that George lied and he knew he was lying.
He didn't use patriotic rhetoric. He lied and made
us afraid of ghosts that weren't there. Now he is
using patriotic rhetoric to keep the US military
presence in Iraq: Patriotic rhetoric that is based
on greed and nothing else.
Now I am being vilified and dragged through the
mud by the righties and so-called "fair and
balanced" main stream media who are afraid of
the truth and can't face someone who tells it by
telling any truth of their own. Now
they have to twist, distort, lie, and scrutinize
anything I have ever said when they never scrutinize
anything that George Bush said or is saying. Instead
of asking George or Scotty McClellan if he will meet
with me, why aren't they asking the questions they
should have been asking all along: "Why are
our young people fighting, dying, and killing in
Iraq? What is this noble cause you are sending our
young people to Iraq for? What do you hope to accomplish
there? Why did you tell us there were WMD's and ties
to Al Qaeda when you knew there weren't? Why did
you lie to us? Why did you lie to the American people?
Why did you lie to the world? Why
are our nation's children still in harm's way and
dying everyday when we all know you lied? Why do
you continually say we have to "complete the
mission" when you know damn well you have no
idea what that mission is and you can change it at
will like you change your cowboy shirts?"
Camp Casey has grown and prospered and survived
all attacks and challenges because America is sick
and tired of liars and hypocrites and we want the
answers to the tough questions that I was the first
to dare ask. THIS is George Bush's accountability
moment and he is failing ... miserably. George Bush
and his advisers seriously "misunderestimated" me
when they thought they could intimidate me into leaving
before I had the answers, or before the end of August.
I can take anything they throw at me, or Camp Casey.
If it shortens the war by a minute or saves one life,
it is worth it. I think they seriously "misunderestimated" all
mothers. I wonder if any of them had authentic mother-child
relationships and if they are surprised that there
are so many mothers in this country who are bear-like
when it comes to wanting the truth and who want to
make meaning of their child's needless and seemingly
meaningless deaths?
The Camp Casey movement will not die until we have
a genuine accounting of the truth and until our troops
are brought home. Get used
to it George, we are not going away.
Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson
called on Monday for the assassination of Venezuelan
President Hugo Chavez, calling him a "terrific danger" to
the United States.
Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition of America
and a former presidential candidate, said on "The
700 Club" it was the United States' duty to stop
Chavez from making Venezuela a "launching
pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."
Chavez has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics
of President Bush, accusing the United States of conspiring
to topple his government and possibly backing plots to
assassinate him. U.S. officials have called the accusations
ridiculous.
"You know, I don't know about this
doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying
to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go
ahead and do it," Robertson said. "It's a whole
lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think
any oil shipments will stop."
Electronic pages and a message to a Robertson spokeswoman
were not immediately returned Monday evening.
Venezuela is the fifth largest oil exporter and a major
supplier of oil to the United States. The CIA estimates
that U.S. markets absorb almost 59 percent of Venezuela's
total exports.
Venezuela's government has demanded in the past that
the United States crack down on Cuban and Venezuelan "terrorists" in
Florida who they say are conspiring against Chavez.
Robertson accused the United States of failing to act
when Chavez was briefly overthrown in 2002.
"We have the ability to take him
out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that
ability," Robertson said.
"We don't need another $200 billion
war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator," he
continued. "It's a whole lot easier to have some
of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over
with."
Comment: Is this the beginning of a
new set of right-wing talking points? "Venezuela
exports Muslim extremism" and "assassination
is cheaper than war"?
We are so appalled at these comments, it hard to know
where to start. Let's start with Venezuela is a "launching
pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism." First,
Venezuela is only "communist" in that broad,
all-encompassing evil kind of way that Americans use
the term "communist": you know, the government
gives free health care to its poorest citizens; it is
attempting to use the profits from its sale of oil to
improve the lot of the majority of its people in spite
of continuous campaigns by the rich with the backing
and blessing of the US to slander and overthrow the democratically
elected government of Hugo Chavez; it is attempting to
curb the influence of and exploitation of the country
by foreign corporations.
It is the second assertion that is so strange and bizarre,
that really makes one wonder about the mental health
of Robertson and his listeners. Not only is Venezuela
a lanuching pad for communism, it is also a launching
pad for "Muslim extremism"! Well, according
to the CIA
World Fact Book entry for Venezuela, the country
is 96% Catholic, 2% Protestant, and 2% other. Unfortunately,
the different religions that make up the "other" part
are not listed, but one can safely assert that Muslims
make up less than 2% of the population. We don't know
if that is .0005% or 1% or 1.5%, but common sense tells
us that Latin American in general is not a hotbed of
Islamic extremism.
However, a Google search on "Latin America" and "Islam",
and "Venezuela" and "Islam" brings
up some interesting finds, interesting from the point
of view of propaganda and manipulation. The first return
is the following article from WorldNetDaily. Is it any
coincidence that Pat Robertson also writes for this site?
Are we surpised that today's
headline at the site is:
WASHINGTON – Islam is on the move in Mexico and
throughout Latin America, making dramatic gains in converting
the native population, increasing immigration, establishing
businesses and charities and attracting attention from
U.S. government officials who have asked their neighbors
to the south to keep an eye on foreign Muslim groups.
[...]
Pentagon officials have confirmed human smuggling rings
in Latin America are attempting to sneak al-Qaida operatives
into the U.S.
In a Defense Department briefing in February 2004 about
National Guardsman Ryan Anderson, suspected of trying
to give al-Qaida information about U.S. capabilities
and weaponry, reporters were also told to expect Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to provide details on two other
subjects: Guantanamo Bay prisoners freed only to rejoin
al-Qaida and Taliban cells in Afghanistan and al-Qaida's
Latin America connection.
No further announcements were ever forthcoming from
the Pentagon, prompting some sources to wonder whether
the administration was conflicted over this news – given
President Bush's political problems with his illegal
immigration across a porous Mexican border.
Before the U.S.-led coalition attacked Iraq, the U.S.
State Department offered congressional testimony that
both al-Qaida and the Shiite terrorist group Hezbollah
were taking firm hold in "America's backyard." Mark
F. Wong, the State Department's acting coordinator for
counterterrorism, told the House International Relations
Committee about the threat posed by both groups in Latin
America.
Anti-terrorism experts say extremist cells tied to Hezbollah,
Islamic Jihad and al-Qaida network are operating in Argentina,
Ecuador, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Uruguay.
Although cooperation between al-Qaida and Hezbollah has
been known for some time, the two groups have formed
a much closer relationship since al-Qaida was evicted
from its base in Afghanistan.
Both al-Qaida and Hezbollah were active in the common
border area of Colombia, Peru and Ecuador, according
to an earlier statement of Deputy Secretary of State
Richard Armitage in hearings before the Foreign Appropriations
Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, cited
in a report from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. [...]
Tens of millions of Muslims, mostly of Arabic descent,
live in Latin America.
The terrorists even get some official support in Latin
America, according to sources. As WorldNetDaily reported,
a Venezuelan military defector claims President Hugo
Chavez developed ties to terrorist groups such as al-Qaida – even
providing it with $1 million in cash after Sept. 11,
2001.
Air Force Maj. Juan Diaz Castillo, who was Chavez's
pilot, told WorldNetDaily through an interpreter that "the
American people should awaken and be aware of the enemy
they have just three hours' flight from the United States."
Diaz said he was part of an operation in which Chavez
gave $1 million to al-Qaida for relocation costs, shortly
after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United
States.
Comment: Notice that there is no mention
of Venezuela as one of the countries in which the "terrorist
organisations" are currently functioning. The only
direct reference comes in the final paragraphs and is
based upon revelations given to WorldNetDaily from a
defector accusing Chavez of giving $1 million to al-Qaeda
after September 11, 2001. Sounds like the stories we
were fed from "one of Saddam's bodyguards" prior
to the invasion of Iraq, stories that later turned out
to be Mossad plants. How easy is it for such information
to be made up in order to discredit an enemy?
In this case WorldNetDaily reminds us of the Weekly
World News.
But let us return to Robertson's idea of assassination.
First, do not forget, Chavez won the election freely,
and then, much to the consternation of the US, won the
recall referendum held last year with 58% of the vote.
As the CIA World Fact Book puts it:
elections: president elected by popular vote
for a six-year term; election last held 30 July 2000
(next to be held NA 2006) election results: Hugo CHAVEZ
Frias reelected president; percent of vote
- 60% note: a special presidential recall vote
on 15 August 2004 resulted in a victory for CHAVEZ;
percent of vote - 58% in favor of CHAVEZ fulfilling
the remaining two years of his term, 42% in favor
of terminating his presidency immediately
The next elections are in 2006, and Chavez has made
no move to cancel them. The democratic process is still
in force in the country. He's got more legitimacy than
George W. Bush who has yet to win an election, and Venezuelan
democracy appears healthier than its American counterpart.
So one might logically conclude from this that Robertson
and many people in the US don't care at all about democracy.
Not a shocking conclusion for readers of this page, we
know, but it is a glaring example of the American need
to go to extracurricular activities when the rules of
the game go against their interests.
But the larger question is: How can there be any justification
for assassination? Robertson gives the utilitarian, bottom
line justification so familiar and cozy in this age of
cost cutting, the rule of the dollar, and the worship
of Mammon: it'll cost less than a war! Yes, friends,
kill our enemies the efficient way! One bullet is all
it takes.
Doesn't that ring a bell?
From official transcript of White House Press
Briefing by Ari Fleischer, 01
October 2002
Q Ari, the CBO has new estimates
that the war in Iraq would cost between $9 billion
and $13 billion. Does the White House think that's
too low?
Mr. Fleischer: Again, the President
has not made any decisions about military action or
what military option he might pursue. And so I think
it's impossible to speculate. I can only say that the
cost of a one-way ticket is substantially less than
that. The cost of one bullet, if the Iraqi
people take it on themselves, is substantially less
than that. The cost of war is more than that.
But there are many options that the President hopes
the world and people of Iraq will exercise themselves
of that gets rid of the threat. But it's impossible
to say what the President options are militarily from
a price tag, because he's made no decisions. [...]
Q You addressed David's question
about one-way ticket. What about one-way bullet? Is
the White House advocating assassination as a possible
option for Saddam Hussein?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that it's
fair to say that the Iraqi regime is not satisfied
with Saddam Hussein, that Saddam Hussein has created
a great many enemies inside Iraq. And it is impossible
to last forever as a brutal dictator who suppresses
his own people, who tortures his own people, who deliberately
brings women in public to be raped, so it can be witnessed
by their families. He has not exactly created goodwill
among the Iraqi people.
Q If I could follow on that, would
the White House like to see Saddam Hussein dead?
MR. FLEISCHER: The policy is regime
change. And that remains -- and that remains the American
position. Clearly, in the event that there is any type
of military operation, command and control would, of
course, be issues that would come up.
Q Is the hope, though, that he ends
up dead in all this?
MR. FLEISCHER: Regime change is the
policy, in whatever form it takes.
Q I just want to re-ask again then,
the question I've been asking for several weeks. Is
the administration about to rescind the executive order
prohibiting assassination of foreign leaders, and claim
that he's an international terrorist, and in fact,
put out a hit on him?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. The policy remains
in place, per the law.
Q Why is there no consideration to
rescinding that executive order?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's just -- because
it's not come up as matter that I've heard discussed,
Connie. And so I can't tell you why something doesn't
get discussed.
Q Could you ask?
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't really think
it's an issue. The policy remains regime change, as
expressed by the Congress.[...]
Q Ari, could I just clarify the one
bullet line -- is the White House from this podium
advocating the assassination of Saddam Hussein by his
own people, by his military?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the question was
about potential costs and different scenarios for costs.
And I just cited the fact that Saddam Hussein has survived
as a result of the repression and suppression of his
own people, and that's a reality about what life is
like inside Iraq.
Q But I'm not asking you a question
about costs. I'm asking you if you intend to advocate
from that podium that some Iraqis, person put a bullet
in his head?
MR. FLEISCHER: Regime change is welcome
in whatever form that it takes.
Q So the answer is, yes?
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you.
Regime change is welcome in whatever form it takes.
END 1:07 P.M. EDT
So ends the official transcript of the press conference,
on the rather bizarro repetition of the phrase "Regime
change is welcome in whatever form it takes."
Onward Christian Soldiers!
Of course, before calling for one bullet politics, the
groundwork must be laid, the population must be softened
up and must accept that the intended target is a threat,
is a monster, is so evil that only his death can "save
us".
That is where the press comes in, the useful propaganda
poodles of the political class spewing that day's "truth" in
order to manipulate the public. Which leads us to....
Last Updated Wed, 24 Aug 2005
17:54:16 EDT
CBC News
U.S. right-wing religious broadcaster Pat Robertson
apologized Wednesday for calling for the assassination
of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
The apology -- from the Christian Broadcasting Network
in Virgina Beach, Va, -- came only hours after Robertson
denied saying Chavez should be killed.
Robertson's apology is on the Christian Broadcasting
Network web site.
"Is it right to call for assassination? No, and
I apologize for that statement. I
spoke in frustration that we should accommodate the man
who thinks the U.S. is out to kill him."
Chavez, whose country is the world's fifth-largest oil
exporter, has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics
of President Bush.
He accuses the United States of conspiring to topple
his government and possibly backing plots to assassinate
him. U.S. officials have called the accusations ridiculous.
On Monday's telecast of his show "The 700 Club," Robertson
had said of Chavez: "... if he thinks we're trying
to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go
ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting
a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."
On Wednesday, Robertson initially denied having called
for Chavez to be killed and said The Associated Press
had misinterpreted his remarks.
On Tuesday, the State Department called Robertson's
remarks inappropriate.
Comment: Gee, that's some apology!
Poor Pat was just frustrated that Chavez is telling one
and all that the US wants to kill him! He couldn't contain
himself!
We think the character of Mr Robertson's remarks is
very well summed up by the title of the next article:
You know, when I was growing up as a Catholic, I was
given many differing views of Jesus Christ. Virtually
all of them were speculative, of course, and as I grew
older, I became aware that most of them were based on
the teacher's particular political and cultural persuasion.
The Pallotinian nuns that taught me in the first and
second grades were always telling us horror stories about
the communists in the Soviet Union and China and had
us pray for the souls of their children every morning.
The Jesuits I knew in high school provided me and my
fellow catechism students with a different view of Jesus.
Indeed, for most of these men Jesus was a revolutionary.
How much of his revolution was spiritual and how much
was social depended on their level of social and political
involvement. Being a very political person, I saw Jesus
as a revolutionary communist with a small "c." Of
course, there were a number of men with Roman collars
at the time who were taking this perception and turning
it into the basis for a social movement in many parts
of the world, especially in Latin America. Many of them
were Jesuits.
It is this tradition that Hugo Chavez of Venezuela recalls
in his speeches and social programs. It is also this
tradition, known today as liberation theology that the
late pope John Paul II attacked within months of his
appointment in 1978. John Paul II's opposition to this
perception of Jesus and his works were also part of the
reason for the demotion of the Jesuit order as the pope's
protectors and the ascension of the right wing Catholic
organization Opus Dei into that role. The new pope is
even less sympathetic to this train of thought. The underlying
reason for this vehement opposition to liberation theology
among the Catholic hierarchy stems from its alliances
with nonreligious leftists and its attacks on the Church's
role as part of the oppressive structure in the world
of the peasantry. Nowhere is this role greater than it
is in Latin America.
Ever since Chavez began his popular upheaval in Venezuela
he has been under attack by the Catholic hierarchy in
that country. In fact, members of Opus Dei were involved
in the failed coup of 2000 and have been instrumental
in the CIA-funded opposition movement since the coup,
just as they were intimately involved in the murderous
CIA-sponsored coup in September 1973 in Chile. Last month,
Bishop Baltazar Porras, president of the Venezuelan bishops'
conference, said proponents of radical liberation theology
are using it to weaken and divide the Church. "This
is part of a plan to debilitate the Church," Porras
told The Associated Press in an interview last week.
He cited a recent forum in which the Church was accused
of turning her back on the poor, where Chavez garners
most of his political support. "This is a new program
led by a group of theologians like the ones in the times
of the Sandinista rule in Nicaragua with the same arguments," said
Porras. "The argument is fundamentally anti-Catholic,
anti-hierarchy." (Catholic World New, 8/15/2005) It
is quite interesting to note Porras equating being anti-hierarchy
with being anti-Catholic. I wonder how the Jesus who
threw the moneychangers out of the temple and challenged
the Scribes and the Pharisees would feel about that equation.
Now, in addition to having the Catholic hierarchy opposed
to him, Mr. Chavez has incurred the wrath of some in
the evangelical community. Given the generally political
conservatism of much of this community, this is not surprising.
What is surprising, however, is the vehemence of this
wrath. Pat Robertson, former US presidential candidate
and head of the multimillion-dollar Christian Broadcast
Network, called for Chavez's assassination in a broadcast
Monday night. Calling assassination " a whole lot
cheaper than starting a war" Robertson went on to
say that if Chavez were killed by US covert operatives
he didn't "think any oil shipments will stop."
Of course, for those who keep
their religion close to their heart or use it only
when necessary to cynically convince the public of
the rightness of their actions, the comments regarding
oil must strike a chord. After all, that's the underlying
reason for Washington's (and the old guard in Venezuela)
opposition to Chavez in the first place. Not only does
he using Venezuelan oil revenues to help the perennially
poor in Venezuela, he is also selling it to Cuba at
cut rates and making deals with China, much to the
chagrin of Washington. Chavez and his supporters
understand this. In addition, they also understand
the Jesus who inspired Father Gutierrez and his liberation
theology. That was the Jesus who said: "It is
easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle,
than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."
Unfortunately, if Mr. Robertson and many others in Washington,
Caracas and the Vatican have their way, Hugo Chavez may
get his chance to enter that kingdom well before they
do. Although I still like to think that if there is a
heaven, Mr. Robertson and his ilk will be denied admission.
Venezuelan president hits back at assassination remarks
with offer of cheap petroleum for poor Americans
Duncan Campbell
Thursday August 25, 2005
The Guardian
President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela
hit back vigorously at calls by an ally of President
George Bush for his assassination by offering cheap petrol
to the poor of the US at a time of soaring fuel prices.
In a typically robust response to remarks by the US
televangelist Pat Robertson, Mr Chávez compared
his detractors to the "rather mad dogs with rabies" from
Cervantes' Don Quixote, and unveiled his plans to use
Venezuela's energy reserves as a political tool.
"We want to sell gasoline and
heating fuel directly to poor communities in the United
States," he said.
Mr Robertson's remarks have threatened to inflame tension
between the US and one of its main oil suppliers.
Yesterday the religious broadcaster apologised for his
remarks.
"Is it right to call for assassination? No, and
I apologise for that statement. I spoke in frustration
that we should accommodate the man who thinks the US
is out to kill him," he said.
In a TV broadcast on Monday, he said: "If he thinks
we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really
ought to go ahead and do it."
Yesterday Mr Robertson initially said his comments had
been misinterpreted, but went on to add that kidnapping
Mr Chávez might be a better idea.
"I said our special forces could take him out.
Take him out could be a number of things, including kidnapping."
The Bush administration tried to distance
itself from Mr Robertson's views without
upsetting the large Christian fundamentalist wing which
the veteran evangelist represents.
A State Department spokesman said assassination was
not part of government policy. "He's a private citizen," Donald
Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, said of Mr Robertson. "Private
citizens say all kinds of things all the time."
But Mr Robertson's remarks are seen as an embarrassment
at a time when the US is calling for a united front against
terror.
Democrats have challenged the Bush administration to
be more outspoken in its response to Mr Robertson's remarks
on the Christian Broadcasting Network.
Venezuela's ambassador to the US, Bernardo Alvarez,
said: "Mr Robertson has been one of this president's
staunchest allies. His statement demands the strongest
condemnation by the White House."
The Venezuelan government is asking for assurances from
the US government that Mr Chávez will be adequately
protected when he visits New York for a special session
of the UN next month.
Venezuela's vice-president, José Vicente Rangel,
said the possibility of legal action against Mr Robertson
for incitement to murder should also be considered.
Venezuela, the world's fifth largest crude exporter,
supplies 1.3m barrels of oil a day to the US. It remains
unclear how poor Americans might benefit from the cheap
petrol offer, but Mr Chávez has set up arrangements
with other countries for swapping services in exchange
for oil. Cuban doctors are working in the poorer areas
of Venezuela in exchange for cheap oil going to Cuba.
Jamaica yesterday became the first
Caribbean country to reach an agreement with Venezuela
for oil at below-market terms. The Petrocaribe initiative
is a plan to offer oil at flexible rates to 13 Caribbean
countries. Jamaica will pay $40 a barrel, against a market
rate of more than $60.
Mr Chávez said oil importers
such as the US could expect no respite from the oil market,
predicting the price of a barrel would reach $100 by
2012.
Comment: Chavez has responded to threats
on his life by turning the tables on the Bush gang, showing
just what a crazy threat he is by offering cheap oil
to poor Americans. How un-American of him! Cheap oil
to poor Americans would turn them into welfare bums!
Would gradually deprive them of the incentive to work
and get ahead, making something of their lives! Plus,
he is undercutting the capitalism by refusing to allow
the invisible hand of the market to determine the just
price of oil.
He's a scoundrel! He is working to subvert the "American
Way of Life": from each according to their inability
to pay, to each according to their wealth and connections.
Hugo Chavez is putting his country's money where his
mouth is, unlike Bush who puts his country's money into
the coffers of companies like Haliburton. Chavez is selling
oil below the going market price (and if things continue,
it will soon be even further below market prices) to
Jamaica. Bush is killing Iraqis. By their fruits...
By JOHN CURRAN
Associated Press Writer
Aug 22 6:45 PM US/Eastern
ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. - An online
thesaurus struck a listing Monday for the word "Arab" after
Arab-American groups complained the entry listed derogatory
synonyms.
The entry, which appeared on thesaurus.com,
listed the word ["Arab"] as a noun meaning "beggar," and
gave 16 pejorative synonyms including "homeless
person" and "welfare bum."
The American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
contacted the synonym book's online publisher Friday
to complain about the entry; the American Arab Forum
also criticized the listing on Monday.
"I looked it up and I couldn't believe what
I was seeing," said Aref Assaf, president of
the American Arab Forum, which is based in Paterson.
Several hours after Roget's
Thesaurus was called by The Associated Press,
all entries for "Arab" had been pulled
from the site.
Barbara Ann Kipfer, editor of the
third edition of Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus,
said the entry had likely been on the site for years,
but never made it into printed versions of the thesaurus.
"We're simply going to take it out," she
said on Monday. "The last thing you want with
a thesaurus is to offend anyone."
Kipfer said an 18th-century term "street arab" had
appeared in other thesauruses, referring to a homeless
child who has been abandoned and roams through the
streets.
The Internet publishing group that produces the
thesaurus.com Web site also said it was surprised
to learn of the entry.
"We got together and tried to resolve it as
soon as possible," said Jasper Chou, director
for marketing for Lexico Group.
Assaf said he was satisfied that the listing had
been removed.
"We look forward to working
with them, should they need a proper definition of
the word. The easier definition is 'anyone who is
Arabic,' which would have been more than sufficient," he
said.
By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press
Mon Aug 22,10:59 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Asking for increased
vigilance in the wake of the London bombings, the government
is warning that terrorists may pose as vagrants to
conduct surveillance of buildings and mass transit
stations to plot future attacks.
"In light of the recent bombings in London,
it is crucial that police, fire and emergency medical
personnel take notice of their surroundings, and
be aware of 'vagrants' who
seem out of place or unfamiliar," said the message,
distributed via e-mail to some federal employees
in Washington by the U.S. Attorney's office.
It is based on a State Department report that was
issued last week. The State Department had no immediate
comment Monday.
The warning is similar to one issued by the FBI
before July 4, 2004 that said terrorists may attempt
surveillance disguised as homeless
people, shoe shiners, street vendors or street sweepers.
The e-mail stresses that there is
no threat of an attack and that it is intended to
be "informative, not alarming."
Homeless people easily blend into urban landscapes,
the message said.
"This is particularly true of our mass transit
systems, where homeless people tend to loiter unnoticed," the
e-mail said.
It referred to a recent incident in Somerville,
Mass., in which a police officer became suspicious
about someone dressed as a street person. The officer
questioned the man, discovered he had a passport
from a "country of interest" - typically
a Middle Eastern or South Asian nation - and a checkbook
with a questionable address, the e-mail said. The
investigation is continuing, it said.
The incident happened in early July, Somerville
city spokesman Mark Horan said, when the man walked
back and forth in front of the
Social Security office in Somerville's Davis Square and kept looking
in the windows.
"This was right after one of the London bombings," Horan
said. "There was an even higher degree of sensitivity."
The man was evasive about what he was doing but
wasn't arrested. Somerville police didn't investigate
further but passed the information on to the FBI,
Horan said. There haven't been any similar incidents
in Somerville, he said.
FBI spokeswoman Gail Marcinkiewicz would not comment
on whether an investigation is ongoing.
Three British citizens were indicted
in the United States earlier this year on charges
they conducted surveillance of the New York Stock
Exchange and other East Coast financial institutions
in 2000 and 2001.
Discovery of the alleged terrorist plan last year
prompted the
Homeland Security Department to raise the terror alert for the targeted
buildings, located in New York, Washington and Newark, N.J. Security
in those cities also was tightened.
Homeland Security also raised the terror alert for
mass transit following the July 7 bombings in London.
The alert was lowered on Aug. 12.
Comment: What was it that Roget's
thesaurus included as synonyms of the word "Arab"?
The entry, which appeared on
thesaurus.com, listed the word ["Arab"]
as a noun meaning "beggar," and
gave 16 pejorative synonyms including "homeless
person" and "welfare
bum."
WASHINGTON - Only weeks from
a summit on UN reforms, the United States has called
for a drastic renegotiation of the draft agreement
and wants to scrap many of its key provisions, The
Washington Post said.
A total of 750 amendments contained in a confidential
36-page document obtained by the Post have been presented
this week to selected envoys by the new US Ambassador
to the UN John Bolton, the newspaper said.
In them, the US government
proposes to eliminate new pledges on foreign aid
to poor nations, scrap provisions calling for action
to halt climate change and urging greater progress
by nuclear powers in dismantling their nuclear
arms.
The US proposals also call for tougher
action against terrorism, promoting human rights
and democracy and halting the spread of the world's
deadliest weapons, the daily said.
Jean Ping, the current president of the UN General
Assembly, is trying to fine-tune a draft on the UN
reform package in time for the summit, scheduled
for September 14-16, ahead of the UN General Assembly
session.
The US amendments call for striking
any mention of the 2000 Millennium Development Goals,
in which UN members set goals over the next 15 years
to reduce poverty, preventable diseases and other
scourges of the world's poor.
In their stead, the US wants to
underscore the importance of the 2002 Monterrey (Mexico)
Consensus, that focused on free-market reforms and
required governments to improve accountability in
exchange for aid and debt relief, the Post said.
The proposals also underscore US
efforts to impose greater oversight of UN spending
and to eliminate any reference to the International
Criminal Court.
The US administration also opposes
language that urges the five permanent members of
the UN Security Council not to cast vetoes on resolutions
to halt genocide, war crimes or ethnic cleansing,
the daily added.
Comment: Well,
it doesn't get much more blatant than that, does
it?
The proposals, The Washington Post said, face strong
resistance from poorer countries who want the UN
to focus more on alleviating poverty and scale back
US propensity to intervene in small countries that
abuse human rights.
US and UN diplomats told the daily that Bolton has
indicated in face-to-face meetings with foreign delegates
that he is prepared to pursue other negotiating options
if the current process proves cumbersome.
Bolton has suggested replacing the entire document
with a brief statement, or splitting the document
up by themes so nations could choose the ones to
support, the diplomats said.
"We are looking at very, very difficult negotiations
in the days ahead," Pakistan's UN ambassador
Munir Akram was quoted as saying by the daily.
The United States has "strong positions, and
many of us do have very strongly held positions.
That's the nature of the game. My only regret is
we didn't get into the negotiations early enough," added
the ambassador.
Comment: In other words, John Bolton
is doing exactly what we expected him to do: attempting
to reform the UN into an extension of the Bush Reich.
The war on terror, genocide, torture, and corporations
would all benefit greatly from Bolton's proposals,
while the poor, the hungry, the oppressed, the average
citizen, and the environment would suffer the most.
International Criminal Court? Who needs it when we
can just make Bush emperor?
We've said it before, and we'll say it again: unless
people and nations around the world stand up against
the lies of the current US administration and their
lapdogs and start to ask the important questions, the
future state of our entire world will make Nazi Germany
seem like a day at the beach.
Americans have started to question Bush, but where
is the support from those anti-Bush folks in other
countries? Now is not the time to take a nap...