Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 04:12:07 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [NYTr] Funding Iraq war, killing our country To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NY Transfer List) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Times Record - Nov 21, 2006 http://www.timesrecord.com/website/main.nsf/news.nsf/0/FDF4F3A4609A1F7A0525722~D0066E4CE?Opendocument Funding Iraq war, killing our country By Bruce Gagnon The Bush administration is preparing to submit a request to Congress for up to $160 billion to fund the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan for fiscal year 2007. This will be on top of $70 billion that Congress has already approved for 2007. Since 2001, Congress has approved $502 billion for the war on "terror," roughly two-thirds for Iraq. The cost of the entire Vietnam War, in today's dollars, was $536 billion. The UK's Guardian recently reported that Bush told senior advisers that the U.S. must make "a last big push" to win in Iraq and might increase U.S. military forces by as many as 20,000 soldiers. In our recent national election, the people voted for a change in policy in Iraq. The message seems to have reached Washington and their answer to the public appears to be "OK, we will change our policy. We will dramatically increase the amount of money we are spending on the war and we will send even more troops." Not quite what the 62 percent of Americans who oppose the war had in mind. The net result of this new policy will likely be more violence in Iraq, more hostility toward U.S. troops, more casualties on all sides and a deepening quagmire. Another important result will be that the Democrats, who so far have been most willing to support all Bush's funding requests for the occupation of Iraq, get locked in to the "new policy." Bush has long said that in his remaining time in office he will not bring the troops home. Thus the only way to end the costly and outrageous Iraq fiasco is to cut the funding for the occupation. This is ultimately how the Congress had to end the war in Vietnam. Soldiers are now coming home from Iraq and not getting adequate treatment from the Veterans Administration because of lack of funding. Cutbacks in social programs are now becoming the norm in the U.S. as we spend 50 percent of every tax dollar on the Pentagon budget. Our nation's No. 1 industrial export product today is weapons. In 2006 the U.S. exported more than $21 billion in weapons - up from $10.6 billion the previous year. Studies have long shown that military spending is capital intensive. In other words, each million dollars spent on military production creates far fewer jobs than if the money were invested in any other kind of job creation effort, including building trains, solar panels or windmills. America is now hemorrhaging jobs and our debt is more than $8.6 trillion and growing by $2 billion a day. We'd better wake up quick and tell the Democrats that they must stop funding this war. It's killing our country. [Bruce K. Gagnon is coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space.] Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space PO Box 652 Brunswick, ME 04011 (207) 729-0517 http://www.space4peace.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://space4peace.blogspot.com (our blog) *** Reuters 03 December 2006 Annan: Iraq in civil war, worse than under Saddam By Evelyn Leopold United Nations - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Iraq was in the grips of a civil war and many people were worse off now than under Saddam Hussein, according to an interview to be broadcast on Monday. Annan, who leaves office on Dec. 31 described Iraq as being in an extremely dangerous situation and again questioned the ability of Baghdad's leadership to solve the civil strife by themselves. "When we had the strife in Lebanon and other places, we called that a civil war -- this is much worse," Annan said in an interview with BBC television and radio. Last week Annan told reporters Iraq was nearing civil war. He said he agreed with Iraqis who claim that life is worse now than it was under Saddam. "I think they are right in the sense of the average Iraqi's life," he told interviewer Lyse Doucet, who spoke to him on Friday. BBC provided a transcript of the interview. "If I were an average Iraqi obviously I would make the same comparison -- that they had a dictator who was brutal but they had their streets, they could go out, their kids could go to school and come back home without a mother or father worrying, 'Am I going to see my child again?" Annan said. "And the Iraqi government has not been able to bring the violence under control," he said. Annan, who has proposed an eventual international conference on Iraq, which Baghdad's leaders have rejected, said, "Iraqis will have to come together and make it happen" but they would need outside assistance. "They would need help from the international community and their neighbors, but some of the key things they have to do is the constitutional review, really looking at issues of revenue sharing - oil and taxation revenues, how do you share it fairly," he said. Since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, which was not approved by the U.N. Security Council and Annan subsequently called "illegal," divisions among U.N. members has sharpened. "I really believed that we could have stopped the war and that if we had worked a bit harder, given the inspectors a bit more time, we could have," Annan said. "I was also concerned that for the U.S. and its coalition to go to war without the consent of the Council in that particular region, which has always been extremely controversial, would be extremely difficult and very divisive and that it would take quite a long time to put the organization back together, and of course it divided the world too," Annan said. He said that the U.S. Iraq Study Group, which is about to release its report, recognized that "things are not working the way they had hoped and that it is essential to take a critical review - take a critical look at what is going on and, if necessary, change course." Asked about his biggest regret, Annan said it was the August 2003 bombing of U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, in which 23 people perished, including the head of the mission, Brazilian Sergio Veiria de Mello, a popular U.N. official. "It was 23 wonderful colleagues and friends I sent to Iraq who got blown away. They went to Iraq to try and help clean up in the aftermath of a war I genuinely did not believe in," Annan said. "And these people, who were wonderful professionals, wonderful friends, were blown up overnight. And of course when that happens, you ask questions, you know: Would they be here if there hadn't been this situation? Would they be here if I hadn't asked them to go?," he said. *** James Abourezk was the first US senator of Arab descent. At a reception for Israeli PM Menachem Begin, he told the visitor that he should negotiate w. the PLO, bringing an abrupt end to the meeting and prompting Sen. John Glenn to say, "Abourezk could start a riot in an empty hall." Abourezk voluntarily left the Senate after one term in 1978. In the wake of the ABSCAM scandal, he founded ADC in 1980 and stepped down from its chair this year. He practices law in Sioux Falls, SD. He sent the below message to NoCal activist/radio host Jeff Blankfort. -Anthony Saidy Dear Jeff: I just finished reading your critique of Noam Chomsky's positions in an e mail sent to me by Tony Saidy. I had never paid much attention to Chomsky's writings, as I had all along assumed that he was correct and proper in his position on the Arab-Israeli conflict. But now, upon learning that his first assumption is that Israel is simply doing what the imperial leaders in the U.S. wants them to do, I concur with you that this assumption is completely wrong. I can tell you from personal experience that, at least in the Congress, the support Israel has in that body is based completely on political fear--fear of defeat by anyone who does not do what Israel wants done. I can also tell you that very few members of Congress--at least when I served there--have any affection for Israel or for its Lobby. What they have is contempt, but it is silenced by fear of being found out exactly how they feel. I've heard too many cloakroom conversations in which members of the Senate will voice their bitter feelings about how they're pushed around by the Lobby to think otherwise. In private one hears the dislike of Israel and the tactics of the Lobby, but not one of them is willing to risk the Lobby's animosity by making their feelings public. Thus, I see no desire on the part of Members of Congress to further any U.S. imperial dreams by using Israel as their pit bull. The only exceptions to that rule is the feelings of Jewish members, who, I believe, are sincere in their efforts to keep U.S. money flowing to Israel. But that minority does not a U.S. imperial policy make. Secondly, the Lobby is quite clear in its efforts to suppress any congressional dissent from the policy of complete support for Israel which might hurt annual appropriations. Even one voice is attacked, as I was, on grounds that if Congress is completely silent on the issue, the press will have no one to quote, which effectively silences the press as well. Any journalists or editors who step out of line are quickly brought under control by well organized economic pressure against the newspaper caught sinning. I once made a trip through the Middle East, taking with me a reporter friend who wrote for Knight-Ridder newspapers. He was writing honestly about what he saw with respect to the Palestinians and other countries bordering on Israel. The St. Paul Pioneer press executives received threats from several of their large advertisers that their advertising would be terminated if they continued publishing the journalist's articles. It's a lesson quickly learned by those who controlled the paper. With respect to the positions of several administrations on the question of Israel, there are two things that bring them into line: One is pressure from members of Congress who bring that pressure resulting in the demands of AIPAC, and the other is the desire on the part of the President and his advisers to keep their respective political parties from crumbling under that pressure. I do not recall a single instance where any administration saw the need for Israel's military power to advance U.S. imperial interests. In fact, as we saw in the Gulf War, Israel's involvement was detrimental to what Bush, Sr. wanted to accomplish in that war. They had, as you might remember, to suppress any Israeli assistance so that the coalition would not be destroyed by their involvement. So far as the argument that we need to use Israel as a base for U.S. operations, I'm not aware of any U.S. bases there of any kind. The U.S. has enough military bases, and fleets, in the area to be able to handle any kind of military needs without using Israel. In fact I can't think of an instance where the U.S. would want to involve Israel militarally for fear of upsetting the current allies the U.S. has, i.e., Saudi Arabia and the Emirates. The public in those countries would not allow the monarchies to continue their alliance with the U.S. should Israel become involved. I suppose one could argue that Bush's encouragement of Israel in the Lebanon war this summer was the result of some imperial urge, but it was merely an extension of the U.S. policy of helping Israel because of the Lobby's continual pressure. In fact, I heard not one voice of opposition to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon this summer (except Chuck Hagel). Lebanon always has been a "throw away" country so far as the Congress is concerned, that is, what happens there has no effect on U.S. interests. There is no Lebanon Lobby. The same was true in 1982, when the Congress fell completely silent over the invasion that year. I think in the heart of hearts of both members of congress and of the administrations they would prefer not to have Israel fouling things up for U.S. foreign policy, which is to keep oil flowing to the western world to prevent an economic depression. But what our policy makers do is to juggle the Lobby's pressure on them to support Israel with keeping the oil countries from cutting off oil to the western nations. So far they've been able to do that. With the exception of King Feisal and his oil embargo, there hasn't been a Saudi leader able to stand up to U.S. policy. So I believe that divestment, and especially cutting off U.S. aid to Israel would immediately result in Israel's giving up the West Bank and leaving the Gaza to the Palestinians. Such pressure would work, I think, because the Israeli public would be able to determine what is causing their misery and would demand that an immediate peace agreement be made with the Palestinians. It would work because of the democracy there, unlike sanctions against a dictatorship where the public could do little about changing their leaders' minds. One need only look at the objectives of the Israeli Lobby to determine how to best change their minds. The Lobby's principal objectives are to keep money flowing from the U.S. treasury to Israel, requiring a docile Congress and a compliant administration. As Willie Sutton once said, "That's where the money is." Jim Abourezk --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
