Iraq war propoganda, censorship, and more shenanigans…

April 1, 2003 at 3:17 pm
Contributed by:

Folks,

 

This
one was pretty unpleasant to read. The U.S. war propoganda, the backroom
jockeying for position in post-war Iraq, the
censorship…oy! 

 

–C 

‘You didn’t
fire a warning shot soon enough!’

A journalist’s account of the killing of a car full of Iraqi civilians by US
soldiers differs widely from the official military version, says Brian
Whitaker

Brian
Whitaker

Guardian
Unlimited
 

A
journalist’s account of the killing of a car full of Iraqi civilians by US
soldiers differs widely from the official military version, says Brian Whitaker


Tuesday April 1, 2003

The invasion forces
suffered another self-inflicted disaster in the battle for hearts and minds
yesterday when soldiers from the US 3rd infantry division shot dead Iraqi seven
women and children.

The incident occurred on Route 9, near Najaf, when a
car carrying 13 women and children approached a checkpoint.

A US
military spokesman says the soldiers motioned the vehicle to stop but their
signals were ignored. However, according to the Washington Post, Captain Ronny
Johnson, who was in charge of the checkpoint, blamed his own troops for ignoring
orders to fire a warning shot.

“You just *censored*ing killed a family because
you didn’t fire a warning shot soon enough!”, he reportedly yelled at them.


In another checkpoint incident this morning, US forces say they killed
an unarmed Iraqi driver outside Shatra.

Meanwhile it has emerged – as a
result of detective work on the internet by a Guardian reader – that the
explosion in a Baghdad market which killed more than 60 people last Friday was
indeed caused by a cruise missile and not an Iraqi anti-aircraft rocket as the
US has suggested.

A metal fragment found at the scene by British
journalist Robert Fisk carried various markings, including “MFR 96214 09″. This,
our reader pointed out in an email, is a manufacturer’s identification number
known as a “cage code”.

Cage codes can be looked up on the internet ( www.gidm.dlis.dla.mil ), and keying in
the number 96214 traces the fragment back to a plant in McKinney, Texas, owned
by the Raytheon Company.

Raytheon, whose headquarters are in Lexington,
Massachusetts, aspires “to be the most admired defence and aerospace systems
supplier through world-class people and technology”, according to its website ( www.raytheon.com ). It makes a vast
array of military equipment, including the AGM-129 cruise missile which is
launched from B-52 bombers.

On the political front, two new quarrels
have broken out. One centres on an attempt by the US to set up its own
inspection team to find the alleged Iraqi weapons that United Nations inspectors
did not find. The US appears unaware that such a project will have little
credibility internationally and has pressed ahead, offering jobs to some of the
UN inspectors.

The two chief UN inspectors, Hans Blix and Mohamed
ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Authority, are reportedly
furious. Dr Baradei, in remarks quoted by the BBC, insisted that the IAEA is the
sole body with legal authority to verify any nuclear programmes in Iraq.


The other row concerns the new Pentagon-controlled Iraqi government that
the US is establishing in Kuwait, with 23 ministries, each headed by an American
and with four US-appointed Iraqi advisers.

Former US general Jay Garner,
who was placed in overall charge of the “interim government”, is annoyed by the
efforts of Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defence secretary, to impose several
controversial Iraqis as advisers in the government.

They include Ahmed
Chalabi, head of the opposition Iraqi National Congress, who will be offered an
advisory post in the finance ministry. Mr Chalabi was previously convicted in
his absence of a multi-million dollar banking fraud in Jordan, though he denies
the charges.

Mr Wolfowitz wants posts in other ministries to go to Mr
Chalabi’s nephew, Salem, and to three of his close associates, Tamara
Daghestani, Goran Talebani and Aras Habib.

In an interview with the BBC
yesterday, the British home secretary, David Blunkett, conceded that at present
the invasion forces are “seen as villains”, but he added:

“Once this is
over and there is a free Iraq, with a democratic state … the population as a
whole will say that we want a free country, we want a state to live in where we
can use our talents to the full.”

The veteran American war
correspondent, Peter Arnett, was sacked by NBC television yesterday for giving
an interview to an Iraqi TV journalist in which he said the US had “misjudged
the determination of the Iraqi forces”. He was immediately offered a new job by
a British newspaper, the Daily Mirror, which opposes the war.

Another
war-related tragedy has occurred in Israel, where two elderly sisters were found
dead – apparently suffocated – in a room that they had made airtight against a
possible Iraqi chemical attack. Three others died in similar circumstances a
fortnight ago.

On the ground in Iraq, battles continue in various
locations. US forces “testing” the southern defences of Baghdad are reportedly
fighting Republican Guards and other forces at Hindiya, some 50 miles from the
capital.

Fighting has also erupted along the Euphrates river near
ancient Babylon. US marines entered Shatra, 20 miles north of Nassiriya, after
storming it with planes, tanks and helicopter gunships, and British Royal
Marines clashed with Iraqi paramilitaries south of Basra.

Bombing of
Baghdad continued overnight. Targets included the Iraqi national Olympic
committee, which is run by Saddam Hussein’s son, Uday.

At least one
American soldier has been reported killed at Hindiya. A British soldier was also
killed yesterday – the 26th since the war began. The defence ministry said he
died “in the course of his duties” but gave no details.

Revoke Bush\’s War Powers

April 1, 2003 at 2:56 pm
Contributed by:

Folks,

 

Here’s a bold move by Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio to
revoke Bush’s war powers. If you want to see this madness stopped, please take a
moment to e-mail Speaker Hastert by simply saying, “I am in favor of introducing
HJ Resolution 20 for a vote.”

 

Sure,
it’s a very long shot. But I think it helps to make known our dissent
regardless.



–C

 

—–Original Message—–





Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 1:06 PM

Subject: [johnslist] Revoke Bush’s War Powers



Friends,

This from the
Ashland Peace House eNewsletter:

 

Against all odds, there were enough
signatures, e-mails telegrams and phone calls within the last 24 hours to
Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio to persuade him to introduce before the
House of Representatives in Washington, D.C. a little known resolution that
deprives the President of his authority to wage war.

However, we must now
persuade Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert that there is a growing consensus
if not a plurality to mandate the resolution for a House
ballot.

Therefore, please take a moment to e-mail Speaker Hastert by
simply saying, “I am in favor of introducing HJ Resolution 20 for a
vote.”

Speaker Hastert’s e-mail: Speaker@mail.house.gov.

There is
urgency This must be done NOW. Please forward to every other concerned citizen
you know.

Read the text and
status of HJ20 at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:h.j.20:.
Of note is Rep DeFazio’s support.

 

–John

 


———————————————————————————–

John’s List is the companion newsletter for http://www.johnfricker.com/

 

Feel free to share this email with your friends and
associates.

 

You can manage your subscription and read the
archives at http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/johnslist/.

 

Will American Christians turn this into a holy war?

April 1, 2003 at 2:55 pm
Contributed by:

Folks,


Here’s a frightening new angle. Well, not “new” exactly, a lot of people have been worried that our attack on Iraq will morph into a war of Islam vs. Christianity. But I didn’t know that the Christian Right in America was already bent on proselytizing in the Middle East in the aftermath of our war. Very, very foolish.


http://www.msnbc.com/news/893454.asp?0cv=CB10

–C

War-Gamed: Why the Army shouldn\’t be so surprised by Saddam\’s moves

April 1, 2003 at 2:55 pm
Contributed by:

Folks,


Here’s an interesting tidbit about how the Army interrupted and limited its own war-gaming in preparation for the war in Iraq, in case you’re wondering what ever happened to the plan to have the war over and done with in a few weeks.


–C

War-Gamed


Why the Army shouldn’t be so surprised by Saddam’s moves.


Maybe we shouldn’t be surprised that the Iraq war is taking longer than predicted…

Hunter S. Thompson weighs in

April 1, 2003 at 2:34 pm
Contributed by:

Folks,

 

You
may or may not care for Hunter S., but he certainly does still have a way with
the written word. (Though if you ever have a chance to hear him speak in
person…don’t! Worst lecture ever!) There are q
uite a few
quotables in this short piece, but the one that hung with me is “Anything over nine seconds is wasted energy, they say in the White
House these days.”

———————————————————-


 


It is a sin to lose in the Big Dance … and
remember that 64 out of the original 65 teams are doomed to failure in the NCAA
Tournament, and that only one can succeed. There is only one winner of the
National Championship. The rest will be Losers. That is how it works in the
U.S.A.
especially in times of War, and this incredibly mis-managed War on
Iraq
will not be going away anytime soon. This one is a Tar-baby, sports fans.


It has already shot
damaging holes in our national confidence and made dangerous Fools of whoever is
running the Pentagon — not to mention the stunning $1,000,000,000 we are
squandering every 24 hours to bomb Iraq back to the stone Age and starve
millions of helpless, un-armed, terrorized civilians to death, in the name of
some hateful, ill-advised, ill-fated military Crusade on the other side of the
world. How long, O lord, how long? We used to be smarter than that.


Indeed, we are truly
the sqanderers of what was once
the American Dream, and our own dreams, for that matter. In two
disastrous years, this Waterhead son of
Texas has taken this
country from a prosperous nation at peace to a dead-broke nation at War, and
that is a very long fall.


How could it happen?
you ask — and I’m damned if I can give you a sane answer in anything close to
the average nine-second time of a hard-hitting, high-tech marketing message of
today’s average sound-byte. Anything over nine seconds is wasted energy, they
say in the White House these days.








 


 


 


 


That
is pure chickens—, of course. That gang of born-again geeks wouldn’t know a
Message from a poison meat-whistle, on the sum of all the ignorant, wrong-headed
evidence thus far in this dismal conflict. It is hard to ignore the prima facie
dumbness that got us bogged down in this nasty war in the first place. This is
not going to be like Daddy’s War, old sport. He actually won, and he still got
run out of the White House nine months later.


That is the dark
silver lining in this blood-spattered cloud we have brought down on ourselves,
and it leaves a lot to be desired. It is almost impossibly morbid to brood on
how many young Americans will have to come home in bodybags before the great
American voter catches on to the fact that it’s the same greed-crazed yo-yo who
slit the throat of the U.S. economy in the name of Tax Cuts, who is responsible
for all the feverish war-mongering gone wrong. The whole thing sucks. It was wrong from the start, and it is
getting wronger by the hour. George W. Bush is doomed to the same cruel fate his
papa suffered only 10 years ago.


 

Comments (0)
 

New Chomsky comments about the war in Iraq

April 1, 2003 at 2:27 pm
Contributed by:

Folks,


More Chomsky, bringing us up to date about the war in Iraq.


Chomsky on War


ZNet forum questions and responses


by Noam Chomsky; ZNet Sustainer Program; March 31, 2003

–C

Comments (0)
 

Patriot Act II (draft)

April 1, 2003 at 2:23 pm
Contributed by:

Folks,


An alert reader has kindly forwarded a Word doc version of this, instead of
that awful unusable PDF format link I sent around earlier.


This is difficult reading, and long, I know. I’m having a hard time getting
through it myself. But it’s very good to hear “from the horse’s mouth”…and
it is truly frightening. I cannot believe the boldness of this impending
legislation. We may as well kiss the Bill of Rights goodbye.

Patriot Act II (draft)


–C

Comments (0)
 

Warmonger Explanation of War

April 1, 2003 at 2:23 pm
Contributed by:

Folks,

 

I
thought this one was pretty good. It takes each of the reasons we’ve heard for
war against Iraq and addresses them one at a time, much as myself or any other
rational citizen might, in a surprisingly pithy style.

Posted on:
3/23/2003 2:32:00 PM – Columnist


AWARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO
AN INQUISITIVE CITIZEN Who insists on asking Common
 Sense, Non Spin Realistic Questions


(“Darn those people who live
in reality can be a real pain”)

 Inquisitive
Citizen (IC) :Why did you say we are we invading
Iraq?

Warmonger (WM): We are invading Iraq
because it is  in violation of Security Council Resolution 1441. A country
cannot be allowed to  violate Security Council resolutions.


IC: But I thought many of our allies,
including  Israel, were in violation of more Security Council resolutions
than Iraq.

WM: It’s not just about UN
resolutions. The main  point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass
destruction, and the first sign of  a  smoking gun could well be a
mushroom cloud over NY.

IC: Mushroom cloud?
But I thought the UN weapons  inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.


WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons
are the  issue.

IC: But I thought Iraq
did not have any long range  missiles for attacking us or our allies with
such weapons.

WM: The risk is not Iraq
directly attacking us, but  rather terrorists networks that Iraq could sell
the weapons to.

IC: But couldn’t virtually
any country sell chemical  or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to
Iraq in the eighties ourselves,  didn’t we?

WM: That’s ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is  an evil
man that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people  since
the early eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a
 power-hungry, lunatic murderer.

IC: We
sold chemical and biological materials to a  power-hungry, lunatic
murderer?

WM: The issue is not what we sold
to Saddam, but  rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a
pre-emptive first strike  on Kuwait.

IC:
What about our green-light to the invasion of  Kuwait?

WM: Let’s deal with the present, shall we? As of  today, Iraq
could sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Quaida. Osama bin Laden
himself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us,
 proving a partnership between the two.

IC: Osama bin Laden? Wasn’t the point of invading
 Afghanistan to kill him?

WM: Actually,
it’s not 100% certain that it’s really Osama bin Laden on the tapes. But the
lesson from the tape is the same: there  could easily be a partnership
between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we  attack immediately.


IC: Is this the same audio tape where Osama
bin  Laden calls Saddam a “secular infidel”?

WM: You’re missing the point by just focusing on the  tape.
Powell presented a strong case against Iraq.

IC: He did?

WM: Yes, he showed
satellite pictures of an Al  Quaeda poison factory in Iraq.


IC: But didn’t that turn out to be a harmless
shack  in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?


WM: And a British intelligence report…


IC: Didn’t that turn out to be copied from an
 out-of-date graduate student paper?

WM:
And reports of mobile weapons labs…

IC:
Weren’t those just artistic renderings?

WM:
And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding  evidence from inspectors…


IC: Wasn’t that evidence contradicted by the
UN’s  Chief Weapons Inspector, Hans Blix?

WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence  that
cannot be revealed because it would compromise our security.


IC: So there is no publicly available
evidence of  weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it’s not  their JOB to
find evidence. You’re missing the point.

IC:
So what is the point?

WM: The main point is
that we are invading Iraq  because resolution 1441 threatened “severe
consequences.” If we do not act, the  Security Council will become an
irrelevant debating society.

IC: So the main
point is to uphold the rulings of  the Security Council?


WM: Absolutely. …unless it rules against
us. Of  course!

IC: And what if it does
rule against us?

WM: In that case, we must
lead a coalition of the  willing to invade Iraq.

IC: Coalition of the willing? Who’s that?

WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, and Spain, for  starters.


IC: I thought Turkey refused to help us
unless we  gave them tens of billions of dollars.

WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.

IC: I thought public opinion in all those countries  was
against war.

WM: Current public opinion is
irrelevant. The  majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make
decisions.

IC: So it’s the decisions of
leaders elected by the  majority that is important?

WM: Yes.

IC: But doesn’t the
Constitution say only Congress  can declare war?

WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our  president,
because he’s acting in our best interest. This is about being a  patriot.
That’s the bottom line.

IC: So if we do not
support the decisions of the  president, we are not patriotic?


WM: I never said that.

IC: So what are you saying? Why are we invading  Iraq?


WM: As I said, because there is a chance that
they  have weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and our allies.


IC: But the UN inspectors have not been able
to find  any such weapons.

WM: Iraq is
obviously hiding them.

IC: You know this?
How?

WM: Because we know they had the weapons
ten years  ago, and they are still unaccounted for.

IC: The weapons we sold them, you mean?

WM: Precisely.

IC: But I
thought those biological and chemical  weapons would degrade to an unusable
state over ten years.

WM: But there is a
chance that some have not  degraded.

IC:
So as long as there is even a small chance that  such weapons exist, we
must invade?

WM: Exactly.


IC: But North Korea actually has large
amounts of  usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long
range missiles  that can reach the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear
weapons inspectors,  AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.


WM: That’s a diplomatic issue.


IC: So why are we invading Iraq instead of
using  diplomacy?

WM: Aren’t you
listening? We are invading Iraq  because we cannot allow the UN inspections
to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has  been delaying, deceiving, and denying
for over ten years, and inspections cost  us tens of millions.


IC: But I thought war would cost us tens of
 billions.

WM: Yes, but this is not
about money. This is about  security.

IC: But wouldn’t a pre-emptive war against Iraq  ignite
radical Muslim sentiments against us, and further decrease our security?


WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the
terrorists  to change the way we live. Once we do that, the terrorists have
already won.

IC: But every one has admitted
there is no evidence  linking Saddam Hussein or Iraq with the 9/11
terrorist attacks? Almost every one  of the alleged terrorists were from
our “ally” Saudi Arabia, none were from  Iraq.

WM: Yes, but this is not just about terrorist  attacks. It’s
about our national security.

IC: So what is
the purpose of the Department of  Homeland Security, color-coded terror
alerts, and the Patriot Act? Aren’t they  supposed to protect us? And don’t
these change the way we live?

WM: I thought
you had questions about Iraq.

IC: I do. I’d
like to know why are we invading Iraq?

WM:
For the last time, we are invading Iraq because  the world has called on
Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He  must now face the
consequences.

IC: So, likewise, if the world
called on us to do  something, such as find a peaceful solution, would we
have an obligation to  listen?

WM: By
“world”, I meant the United Nations.

IC: So,
we have an obligation to listen to the  United Nations?


WM: By “United Nations” I meant the Security
 Council.

IC: So, we have an obligation
to listen to the  Security Council?

WM:
Well, I meant the majority of the Security  Council.

IC: So, we have an obligation to listen to the  majority of
the Security Council?

WM: Well… there could
be an unreasonable veto.

IC: In which case?


WM: In which case, we have an obligation to
ignore  the veto.

IC: And if the
majority of the Security Council does  not support us at all?


WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the
 Security Council.

IC: That makes no
sense.

WM: Look, if you love Iraq so much,
you should move  there. Or maybe France, with the all the other
cheese-eating surrender monkeys.  It’s time to boycott their wine and
cheese, no doubt about that.

IC: I give up!


(Source: Unknown ]

Comments (0)
 

Delusions of Power – Paul Krugman

April 1, 2003 at 2:23 pm
Contributed by:

Folks,


 

At the
risk of being boring, I’ll say it again: nobody says it like Krugman.
He’s da bomb!

 

–C

 

—–Original Message—–


  

By PAUL
KRUGMAN


They considered themselves tough-minded realists, and
regarded doubters as fuzzy-minded whiners. They silenced those who questioned
their premises, even though the skeptics included many of the government’s own
analysts. They were supremely confident – and yet with shocking speed everything
they had said was proved awesomely wrong.


No, I’m not talking about the war; I’m talking about the energy task
force that Dick Cheney led back in 2001. Yet there are some disturbing
parallels. Right now, pundits are wondering how Mr. Cheney – who confidently
predicted that our soldiers would be “greeted as liberators” – could have been
so mistaken. But a devastating new report on the California energy crisis
reminds us that Mr. Cheney has been equally confident, and equally wrong, about
other issues.


In spring 2001 the lights were going out all over California. There
were blackouts and brownouts, and the price of electricity was soaring. The
Cheney task force was convened in the midst of that crisis. It concluded, in
brief, that the energy crisis was a long-term problem caused by meddling
bureaucrats and pesky environmentalists, who weren’t letting big companies do
what needed to be done. The solution? Scrap environmental rules, and give the
energy industry multibillion-dollar subsidies.


Along the way, Mr. Cheney sneeringly dismissed energy conservation as
a mere “sign of personal virtue” and scorned California officials who called for
price controls and said the crisis was being exacerbated by market manipulation.
To be fair, Mr. Cheney’s mocking attitude on that last point was shared by
almost everyone in politics and the media – and yes, I am patting myself on the
back for getting it right.


For we now know that everything Mr. Cheney said was
wrong.


In fact, the California energy crisis had nothing to do with
environmental restrictions, and a lot to do with market manipulation. In 2001
the evidence for manipulation was basically circumstantial. But now we have a
new report from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which until now has
discounted claims of market manipulation. No more: the new report concludes that
market manipulation was pervasive, and offers a mountain of direct evidence,
including phone conversations, e-mail and memos. There’s no longer any doubt:
California’s power shortages were largely artificial, created by energy
companies to drive up prices and profits.


Oh, and what ended the crisis? Key factors included energy
conservation and price controls. Meanwhile, what happened to that long-term
shortage of capacity, which required scrapping environmental rules and providing
lots of corporate welfare? Within months after the Cheney report’s release,
stock analysts were downgrading energy companies because of a looming
long-term-capacity glut.


In short, Mr. Cheney and his tough-minded realists were blowing
smoke: their report described a fantasy world that bore no relation to reality.
How did they get it so wrong?


One answer is that Mr. Cheney made sure that his task force included
only like-minded men: as far as we can tell, he didn’t consult with anyone
except energy executives. So the task force was subject to what military types
call “incestuous amplification,” defined by Jane’s Defense Weekly as “a
condition in warfare where one only listens to those who are already in
lock-step agreement, reinforcing set beliefs and creating a situation ripe for
miscalculation.”


Another answer is that Mr. Cheney basically drew his advice about how
to end the energy crisis from the very companies creating the crisis, for fun
and profit. But was he in on the joke?


We may never know what really went on in the energy task force since
the Bush administration has gone to extraordinary lengths to keep us from
finding out. At first the nonpartisan General Accounting Office, which is
supposed to act as an internal watchdog, seemed determined to pursue the matter.
But after the midterm election, according to the newsletter The Hill,
Congressional Republicans approached the agency’s head and threatened to slash
his budget unless he backed off.


And therein lies the broader moral. In the last two years Mr. Cheney
and other top officials have gotten it wrong again and again – on energy, on the
economy, on the budget. But political muscle has insulated them from any adverse
consequences. So they, and the country, don’t learn from their mistakes – and
the mistakes keep getting bigger.



 

Comments (0)
 

27 Similarities between Hitler and President Bush

April 1, 2003 at 2:50 am
Contributed by:

Folks,

I debated a while whether or not this was worthy of sending to the list. It’s harsh, one-sided, and not that well-written. Still, I eventually decided that it was thought-provoking enough to be worth a forward. Take for what it’s worth to ya.

More quality material to come…

–C
——————————————————-

27 Similarities between Hitler and President Bush

After President Bush promised last fall to invade Iraq, his spokesmen fell
into the habit of comparing Saddam Hussein with Adolph Hitler, by most
accounts the most monstrous figure in modern history. Everybody was
therefore shocked when the German Minister of Justice turned the tables by
comparing Bush himself with Hitler. As to be expected, she (the Justice
Minister) was forced to resign because of her extreme disrespect for an
American president. However, the resemblance sticks — there are too many
similarities to be ignored, some of which may be listed here.

1. Like Hitler, President Bush was not elected by a majority, but was forced
to engage in political maneuvering in order to gain office.

2. Like Hitler, Bush began to curtail civil liberties in response to a
well-publicized national outrage, in Hitler’s case the Reichstag fire, in
Bush’s case the 9-11 catastrophe.

3. Like Hitler, Bush went on to pursue a reckless ultra-nationalist foreign
policy without the mandate of the electorate.

4. Like Hitler, Bush has accordingly improved his popularity ratings,
especially with veterans and conservative Republicans, by mounting an
aggressive public relations campaign against foreign enemies. Just as Hitler
cited international communism to justify Germany’s military buildup, Bush
uses Al Qaeda and the Axis of Evil to justify our current military buildup.

5. Like Hitler, Bush promotes militarism while in the midst of a major
economic recession (or depression). He uses war preparations to help
subsidize defense industries (Halliburton, Bechtel, etc.) and presumably the
rest of the economy on a trickle-down basis.

6. Like Hitler, Bush glorifies patriotism to stir up public support. He
treats our nation’s unique historic destiny almost as a religious cause
sanctioned by God.

7. Like Hitler, Bush quickly makes and breaks diplomatic ties, and he makes
generous promises that he soon abandons, as in the case of Mexico, Russia,
Afghanistan, and even New York City.

8. Like Hitler, Bush envisages a future world order that guarantees his own
nation’s hegemonic supremacy rather than cooperative harmony under the
authority of the United Nations (or League of Nations). He is willing to
break the U.N. Charter in promoting this end.

9. Like Hitler, Bush scraps international treaties, most notably the
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Convention on the Prohibition of Land
Mines, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Kyoto Global Warming Accord, and
the International Criminal Court.

10. Like Hitler, Bush depends on an axis of collaborative allies, which he
describes as a "coalition of the willing," to give the impression of having a
broad popular alliance. These include the U.K. as compared to Mussolini’s
Italy, and Spain and Bulgaria as compared to, well, Spain and Bulgaria, both
of which were aligned with Germany during the thirties and World War II.

11. Like Hitler, Bush possesses a war machine much bigger and more effective
than the military capabilities of other nations. Today, Bush depends on a
"defense" budget roughly equivalent to the combined military expenditures of
the rest of the world.

12. Like Hitler, Bush is willing to invade other nations despite the
opposition of the U.N. (League of Nations). He also has no qualms about
bribing, bullying and insulting its members, even tapping their telephone
lines.

13. Like Hitler, Bush pursues war without cutting back on the peacetime
economy. He actually seeks to reduce taxes while conducting an expensive
invasion and occupation of an "undesirable" nation.

14. Like Hitler, Bush launches unilateral invasions on a supposedly
preemptive basis. Just as Hitler convinced the German public to think of
Poland as a threat to Germany in 1939, Bush wants Americans to think of Iraq
as a "potential" threat to our national security.

15. Like Hitler, Bush is willing to inflict high levels of bloodshed, with
many thousands of casualties anticipated in Iraq, especially since the city
of Baghdad–with a population of between 5 and 6 million–will be a primary
target.

16. Like Hitler, Bush depends on a military strategy that features a "shock
and awe" blitzkrieg beginning with devastating air strikes, then an invasion
led by heavy armor columns.

17. Like Hitler, Bush is perfectly willing to sacrifice life as part of his
official duty, as indicated by his unique record as a governor of Texas who
was reluctant to commute death sentences.

18. Like Hitler Bush began warfare on a single front (Al Qaeda quartered in
Afghanistan), but then expanded it to a second front with Iraq, only to be
confronted with North Korea as a potential third front. Much the same thing
happened when Hitler expanded German military operations from Spain to Poland
and France, then was distracted by Yugoslavia before invading the USSR in
1941.

19. Like Hitler, Bush has no qualms about imposing "regime change" by
installing Quisling-style client governments reinforced by full-scale
military occupation under a military governor.

20. Like Hitler, Bush curtails civil liberties and depends on detention
centers (i.e. concentration camps) such as Guantanamo Bay.

21. Like Hitler, Bush repeats lies often enough that they come to be accepted
as the truth. Bush and his spokesmen argue, for example that every measure
has been taken to avoid war (hardly true), that an invasion of Iraq will
diminish (not intensify) the terrorist threat to the world, and that the U.S.
is staging an invasion because the risks of inaction would be greater (not
less). All of this is highly debatable. They likewise argue that Iraq is
linked with Al Qaeda (which has yet to be proven), and that nothing
whatsoever has been achieved by U.N. inspectors to warrant the postponement
of U.S. war plans (which simply isn’t true). They insist that Iraq hides
numerous weapons it does not possess as well

as can be determined by U.N. inspectors, and they refuse to acknowledge the
total absence of any nuclear weapons program in Iraq since the late nineties.
As perhaps to be expected, they indignantly accuse everybody else of
deception and evasiveness.

22. Like Hitler, Bush incessantly finds new excuses to justify war—from
Iraq’s WMD threat to the elimination of Saddam Hussein, to his supposed Al
Qaeda connection, to the creation of democracy in the Middle East as a model
for neighboring states, and back again to the WMD threat. As soon as one
excuse for war is challenged, Bush shifts to another, but only to shift back
again at another time.

23. Like Hitler Bush and his cohorts exaggerate ruthlessness by their enemies
in order to justify their own. Just as Hitler cited the threat of communist
violence to justify even greater violence on the part of Germany, the Bush
team justifies a full-scale invasion of Iraq by emphasizing Saddam Hussein’s
crimes against humanity that were for the most part committed when Iraq was a
client-ally of the U.S., supplied with both advisors and materiel (poison gas
included) by our own government.

24. Like Hitler, Bush’s Messianic ambition to bring about America’s hegemonic
dominance in the world makes him perhaps the most dangerous President in our
nation’s history, a rogue chief executive capable of waging any number of
illegal preemptive wars.

25. Like Hitler, Bush has become so obsessed with his vision of a Manichaean
conflict between good (U.S. patriotism) and evil (the anti-patriotic "other")
that for many in contact with the White House he is beginning to seem as if
he has lost touch with reality.

26. Like Hitler, Bush takes pleasure in the mythology of frontier justice.
As a youth Hitler read and memorized the western novels of Karl May, and Bush
retains into his maturity his fascination with simplistic cowboy values. He
also exaggerates a cowboy twang despite his elitist education at Andover,
Yale and Harvard.

27. Like Hitler, Bush misconstrues evolutionary theory, in Hitler’s case by
treating the Aryan race as being superior, in Bush’s case by rejecting
science for fundamentalist creationism.

Of course countless differences may be listed between Hitler and President
Bush, most of which are to the credit of Bush. Nevertheless, the
twenty-seven resemblances listed here are striking, especially since Bush’s
presidency this last couple of years must be compared to Hitler’s early
performance as German Chancellor, preceding the chain of events that
culminated in World War II. As with Hitler, Bush’s early successes in
pursuit of global imperialism–whatever the cost to others–might well
culminate in disaster, if not quite of the same magnitude.

Comments (0)
 

Page 4 of 41234


Copyright © 2008 GetRealList
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
FAIR USE NOTICE