WTC I and WTC II

In a Boston Globe op-ed on 12/16/02, syndicated columnist William Pfaff wrote, "In the months following the terrorist attacks of September 2001, it was politically taboo to say the United States had in some way brought these attacks upon itself. Television talk show hosts and print journalists lost their jobs for suggesting such a thing." Similarly, Mayor Giuliani turned down a $10 million gift for World Trade Center victims' families from a Saudi prince because the prince wanted to suggest that our foreign policy played a role in alienating the Muslim world.

Yet this should have been well known. Eight years earlier, Ramzi Yousef, whose mother was Palestinian, had masterminded the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. James Bamford ("A Pretext for War" pp. 99-102) explains, "His goal was to punish the United States for its support of Israel." Yousef's terrorist cell left behind a letter which "made it very clear that they were planning to return to finish what they had started at the World Trade Center." One wonders how many 9/11 victims were aware of this. Yousef's uncle, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, also made it clear that his motive in masterminding 9/11 was US favoritism towards Israel. ("The 9/11 Commission Report" p. 147)

Governor Howard Dean, while campaigning for the presidency in 2004, suggested that we take a more even-handed approach to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. He was immediately featured in negative cover articles in both "Time" and "Newsweek" and promptly lost the Iowa caucuses. President Bush boasts that he has kept us safe from terrorism since 9/11, but one must remember that it was eight years between WTC I and WTC II. It's time for an even-handed Middle East policy.

Distrust

In a New York Times column on 10-24-04, Tom Friedman reported that he had asked Scott Pelley of CBS how Iraqis on the streets referred to American troops. Pelley said, "Many Iraqis have so much distrust for U.S. forces we found they've come up with a nickname for our troops. They call American soldiers 'The Jews,' as in, 'Don't go down that street, the Jews set up a roadblock' " As sponsor of the detested Israeli occupation, Americans are distrusted and hated in the Muslim World. Just as Israel colonizes land promised by the U.N. to the Palestinians, the U.S. is suspected of plans to build permanent military installations in Iraq and to extract enormous profits from oil contracts. Terrorism will not end until the occupations end.

Neocon Democracy

The New York Times reported 1/23/06 that the "U.S. Spent $1.9 Million to Aid Fatah in Palestinian Elections." Clearly, the version of democracy which the neocons want to spread around the world is the type we have here, where their money rules. U.S. politicians prostitute themselves to special interests, such as Abramoff and AIPAC (see blog entry "Why Iraq? Part 7" 1/21/06), in order the raise the obscene amounts of cash necessary to pay for the exorbitant but requisite TV ads. At one time the idea was floated around that since by rights the public should own the airwaves anyway, free TV and radio time should be available for candidates. That idea was soundly squelched by the status quo. On the bright side, it is refreshing to see that elsewhere in the world, as in Palestine and Iraq, there is immunity to neocon dollars.

Hamas Victory

President Bush should seize upon the Hamas victory to stake out a bold new US position in the Middle East. Yesterday's New York Times reported that Israel's acting prime minister is willing to give up "parts" of the West Bank but intends to retain the West Bank Jewish settlement blocs and all of Jerusalem. No wonder the Palestinians voted for Hamas. The end point destination of the "Road Map" is very clear and very unfair. (See blog entry "The Road Map" 1/13/06.) Instead, President Bush should back the Saudi Peace Plan, a solution accepted even by a Hamas spokesperson. (See blog entry "The Saudi Peace Plan" 1/11/06.) When the UN partitioned Palestine in 1947, 53% was allocated to Israel with Jerusalem an international city. (See blog entry "Palestine Part 1" 1/9/06.) The Saudi Plan allocates 78% to Israel with Jerusalem a divided city. This is more than Israel's fair share yet the plan was accepted by Palestinians and the Arab League. Since it is in the US interest to end Middle East violence, we must go on record as supporting a just solution. As the Arab and Muslim worlds well know, we are the only country in a position to bring about peace.

Morphing into Israel

Because of its longstanding oppressive occupation of Palestine, Israel is hated throughout the world, and as Israel's financial backer, so are we. Indeed, that is why we were attacked on 9/11, according to the mastermind himself, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (See "The 9/11 Commission Report" p. 147). Since then we have worsened the situation by morphing into Israel. Just as Israel occupies Palestine, we occupy Iraq. Just as Israel destroys buildings to kill its enemies, killing innocent people in the process, so do we. Just as Israelis shoot innocent people at checkpoints, thinking they might be enemies, so do we. Just as Israel arrests and holds large numbers of people indefinitely, so do we. Fortress Israel has a wall around it for protection, and its citizens have gas masks, lots of plastic sheeting and duct tape, etc. Here comes Fortress America.

Faulty Intelligence Part 3

Seymour Hersh reports that Douglas Feith's Office of Special Plans was created in order to find evidence "that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons." ( "Chain of Command" p. 209) Traditionally, intelligence agencies have made certain that sources of important information were vetted. As Seymour Hersh explains, "the vetting process is especially important when one is dealing with foreign reports---sensitive intelligence that can trigger profound policy decisions. In theory, no request for action should be taken directly to higher authorities---a process known as 'stovepiping'---without the information on which it is based having been subjected to rigorous scrutiny." Unfortunately, "the Office of Special Plans circumvented the vetting process." ("Chain of Command" p. 215)

Faulty Intelligence Part 2

James Bamford states that in August 2002, Douglas Feith (see previous blog entries: Why Iraq? Part 2, 3, 4), as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, set up the Office of Special Plans (OSP) in the Pentagon. "According to a report in London's "Guardian" newspaper, the OSP also forged close ties to a parallel ad hoc intelligence unit within Ariel Sharon's office in Israel." ( James Bamford, "A Pretext for War" p. 307-308) Seymour Hersh writes, "By the fall of 2002, the operation rivaled both the C.I.A. and the Pentagon's own Defense Intelligence Agency, the D.I.A., as President Bush's main source on intelligence regarding Iraq's possible possession of stockpiles on weapons of mass destruction and connection with Al Qaeda." (Seymour Hersh, "Chain of Command" p. 207-208) "In its search for new intelligence, the Office of Special Plans turned to Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, which constantly sought out Iraqi defectors. The office developed a close working relationship with the I.N.C. and became a conduit for intelligence reports from the I.N.C. to officials in the White House." (Seymour Hersh, "Chain of Command" p. 211)

Faulty Intelligence Part 1

On November 1, 2005, Senate Republicans were forced by the Democrats into a rare closed session, which only ended when Republicans agreed to speed up the inquiry into the Bush Administration's handling of pre-war intelligence. (This investigation comprises phase 2 of a report, the first part of which had been issued on July 7, 2004. Democrats had reluctantly agreed then to postpone phase 2 until after the November 2004 elections.) At the end of the closed session, Senator Jay Rockefeller, Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, stated that on February 12, 2004, the Committee had unanimously agreed, (and announced to the public), that certain areas would be investigated. These included any intelligence activities related to Iraq within the office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Douglas Feith, and the use of information provided by Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress.

Why Iraq? Part 7

As has been highlighted by the Abramoff affair, lobbyists play an extremely powerful role in Congress. One of the most powerful lobbies, as described by Jeffrey Goldberg in "The New Yorker" July 4, 2005, is AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which "lobbies for Israel's financial and physical security." Congressmen who have been adequately pro-Israel have been financially rewarded through a network of pro-Israel political-action committees (PACs) which have doled out millions of dollars. Congressmen who have not been adequately pro-Israel have been punished, as acceptable opponents were found and then heavily financed so as to defeat those congressmen in the next election.

Goldberg further notes that "AIPAC lobbied Congress in favor of the Iraq war," and thus it is not surprising that Congress passed the infamous October 2002 resolution authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq. Incidentally, way back on page A30, today's New York Times reports that a former Defense Department analyst was sentenced yesterday to 12 years 7 months in prison after admitting he passed classified military information, "military secrets whose disclosure could have damaged the US," to two AIPAC lobbyists and an Israeli diplomat.

Why Iraq? Part 6

A neophyte with regard to foreign policy, President Bush was very vulnerable to influence by neoconservatives such as Richard Perle, co-author of "A Clean Break" (see previous blog entry). Patrick Buchanan has written, "Before 2000, George W. Bush seemed a tabula rasa, a blank slate on foreign policy." He "had no experience in foreign policy and had exhibited zero interest." "Perle's depiction of his delight at first meeting the future president reads like Fagin relating his initial encounter with the young Oliver Twist: 'The first time I met Bush 43, I knew he was different. Two things became clear. One, he didn't know very much. The other was he had confidence to ask questions that revealed he didn't know very much.' " ("Where the Right Went Wrong" p. 41-42.)

Why Iraq? Part 5

As shown in previous blog entries, certain neoconservatives had been calling for war with Iraq for some time prior to September 11. Another example of this is a letter sent to then President Clinton on January 26, 1998 which stated, "The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing." It was signed by Elliott Abrams, John Bolton, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, and others. It can been found at www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
President Clinton wisely ignored the warmongers.

Why Iraq? Part 4

Douglas Feith worked in the Pentagon under President Reagan. James Bamford writes, "Soon after leaving the Pentagon and into the 1990s, Feith began turning more and more extreme in his pro-Israel and anti-Arab and -Palestinian views. He churned out constant diatribes in Israeli newspapers..." He wrote that there should be more Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, that the Oslo peace process should end, that the occupied territories belonged to Israel, that the Palestinians belonged in Jordan, and that there should be regime change in Iraq. ("A Pretext for War" p. 279) All three authors of the 1996 "A Clean Break" paper (see previous entry) were to hold influential positions in President George W. Bush's administration. Douglas Feith became Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Richard Perle was Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, and David Wurmser "shuttled from special assistant to Undersecretary of State John Bolton, to Feith's shop at the Pentagon, to special assistant to 'Scooter' Libby, now chief of staff to Vice President Cheney" (Patrick Buchanan "Where the Right Went Wrong" p. 45).

Why Iraq? Part 3

In 1996 Douglas Feith co-authored a policy paper with Richard Perle and David Wurmser entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm." It was written for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. James Bamford ("A Pretext for War" p. 262) writes, "They recommended launching a major unprovoked regional war in the Middle East, attacking Lebanon and Syria and ousting Iraq's Saddam Hussein." They also recommended using a phony pretext for war, such as WMD, to gain American support. Saddam Hussein was to be replaced with a puppet friendly to Israel.

Why Iraq? Part 2

In the Iraq fiasco, one of the most tragic figures is surely Colin Powell. By no means a member of the warmongering neoconservative cabal, Powell was nonetheless given the ignominious task of presenting pro-war "intelligence," largely false, to the UN and the world on February 5, 2003. George Packer ("The Assassins' Gate" p. 444-445) describes Powell's goodbye meeting with President Bush in January 2005, when Powell "decided to speak his mind without constraint. The Defense Department had too much power in shaping foreign policy," he said, and as an example he specifically pinpointed "the department's number three official, Douglas Feith, whom Powell called a card-carrying member of the Likud Party."

Why Iraq? Part 1

In the March 24, 2003 issue of "The American Conservative," the lead article by Patrick J. Buchanan is entitled "Whose War? A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America's interest." Buchanan writes, "What these neoconservatives seek is to conscript American blood to make the world safe for Israel." "We charge them with deliberately damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people's right to a homeland of their own." Although no threat to the U.S., Saddam Hussein, like all other Muslim leaders, did support the Palestinian people's rights.

Foreign Policy Overview

Once the world's greatest superpower, our country is sinking deeper and deeper into debt, as the War on Iraq and the War on Terror enrich the Military Industrial Complex and the Security Industrial Complex at the expense of our future generations. Ironically, it is China, the world's next great superpower, who controls much of our debt and therefore our future. Although many contend that our invasion of Iraq was necessary to ensure our oil supply, it is noteworthy that China does not find it necessary to keep its troops in Iraq. This is because China does not subsidize Israel's detested occupation of Palestine and has therefore not incurred the wrath of the Muslim world. For instance, Iran happily sells China 300,000 barrels of oil per day (NY Times 1-14-06).

The Road Map

The "Road Map," our Israeli-Palestinian Peace Plan, is a dead end leading nowhere. It puts the cart before the horse since negotiations should come first, not last. Just as a country has a right to defend itself, a people living under occupation have an innate right to resistance. The Road Map takes away this right without offering the promise of a just settlement in return. Indeed, Israeli colonization and usurpation of West Bank water resources indicates that their final solution will be unfair, as was the proposal Yasir Arafat correctly refused in 2000 (See maps, Harper's Magazine, December 2001, p. 88).

Israel and Iraq

Since the presence of foreign troops in Muslim lands, such as Palestine, is known to cause suicide terrorism, (see previous blog entries), it is not surprising that our occupation of Iraq has had the same effect. We are told we must "stay the course" to combat terrorism, but the opposite course would be more effective. If we were to endorse the Saudi Peace Plan, end our support of the Israeli occupation, and withdraw our troops from Muslim lands, we would no longer be targeted by Muslim terrorists. Likewise, if Israel accepted the Saudi Peace Plan, she would finally be at peace with her neighbors.

The Saudi Peace Plan

In 2002 a Saudi peace plan was put forth and endorsed by the Arab League, including the Palestinians. Even a Hamas spokesman accepted it (San Francisco Chronicle, April 28, 2002). The Saudi Plan "offered full recognition and integration of Israel into the region in exchange for withdrawal to the 1967 borders, yet another version of the longstanding international consensus that the US has blocked" (Noam Chomsky, "Hegemony or Survival" p. 169). Returning to the 1967 borders means that Israel would encompass 78% of Palestine, whereas the original UN partition allotted 53% to Israel.

Palestine, Part 2

Not only does the US incite hatred around the world by our support of Israel's illegal oppressive occupation of Palestine, but, as documented in Noam Chomsky's "Hegemony or Survival," the US for years has impeded the peace process. There have been numerous UN resolutions against the Israeli occupation and other illegal Israeli actions, but the US has generally sided with Israel against the rest of the world. The American public is largely unaware of this since these issues have been typically ignored by the US media. However, this role of the US is well publicized throughout the Muslim world.

Palestine, Part 1

Palestine, the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, was populated predominantly by Arabs for 1300 years. Then in 1947, the UN (Resolution 181) partitioned Palestine into roughly equal Jewish and Arab states, (See map p. 26, Avi Shlaim, "The Iron Wall.") Jerusalem, located in the Arab state, was to be an international city since it is holy to three religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Today, several decades and several wars later, Israel, with US support, occupies all of Palestine, and there are millions of Palestinian refugees stranded in other countries.

Why They Hate Us, Part 4

Suicide bombing is not an indiscriminate attack on "infidels;" Robert Pape documents in his book, "Dying To Win," that Muslim suicide terrorists are primarily motivated by the political goal of expelling foreign troops from their homelands. Michael Scheuer, former CIA bin Laden Unit Chief, writes, "the focused and lethal threat posed to US national security arises not from Muslims being offended by what America is but rather from their plausible perception that the things they most love--God, Islam, their brethren, and Muslim lands--are being attacked by America." ("Imperial Hubris" p.9)

Why They Hate Us, Part 3

Due to our support of Israel's occupation of Palestine, the US has been targeted for some time, as with the 1970's Arab oil embargo. James Bamford writes, "Thus, by early 1995, terrorists had attempted to bring down the World Trade Center, were planning to blow up airliners, and were exploring the possibility of turning passenger planes into weapons of mass destruction and crashing them into American buildings......It was equally clear that the reason for the attacks was the country's support for Israel and its occupation and treatment of the Palestinians." ("A Pretext For War" p. 139)

Why They Hate Us, Part 2

In addition to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (see previous entry), Osama Bin Laden has also explained why we are hated in the Muslim World. In an October 2004 tape, Bin Laden stated, "Unlike what Bush says that we hate freedom, let him tell us why didn't we attack Sweden, for example." He said that he decided to attack the US towers while observing the 1983 Israeli bombing of towers in Beirut which symbolized the "injustice and inflexibility of the American/Israeli alliance towards his people in Palestine and Lebanon."

Why They Hate Us

After September 11, in an attempt to explain why we were attacked, many highly dubious theories were put forth, such as the notion that the terrorists hated freedom and wished to convert the US to Islam. Yet, in "The 9/11 Commission Report," it is stated that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, (KSM), who was after all "the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks," gave a different explanation. "By his own account, KSM's animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel" (p. 147).

Dundee's Blog

This blog is created in a sense of frustration about the direction in which our country is heading. The media do not provide adequate opportunity for venting of public opinion on serious matters such as The War on Terror, the War on Iraq, etc. Letters to the Editor are rarely printed. Radio and TV talk shows are generally concerned only with trivial matters, with the exception of nationally syndicated ones whose call-in lines are usually busy. More to follow.