FTW and the Washington Post: follow-up

May 28, 2003 at 8:15 am
Contributed by:


Folks,

 

A few days ago I sent out the original story about FTW buying their first
full-page ad in the Washington Post. Apparently, the story generated a lot of
interest, and now they’re seeking donations to help them place more ads in major
national newspapers. If you can spare $10 in the interest of fighting for the
truth, won’t you help them out? Note: this
is time-sensitive, they’ve got about 24 days left to make it happen.

—–Original Message—–
Subject: The Mouse that Roared –
only 24 days

FTW is attempting to buy ad
space in 12 of the nations major newspapers.  A small contribution can make
you part of a greater good – seeing a similar ad run all across the U.S., and
making an attempt at reclaiming our country and the freedoms which have been
stolen from underneath us.

[forwards removed]


The Mouse That Roared

9,000 FTW
Subscribers Take on America (and the World)!

May 21, 2003, 1500 PDT (FTW ) – Since our ad ran in The
Washington Post
last Friday we have been completely overwhelmed with email
and calls from people who want to help run the ad in more newspapers in America
and around the world.

Well, we’ve got your request
covered!



First Some Statistics

The Washington Post
ad reached an audience of more than 2.5 million people.

According to Washington insiders we have spoken to, the effects of it are
still reverberating throughout our nation’s capitol. While we are confident that
our ad hastened and very likely caused, the April 26 firing of Army Secretary
Thomas White, other recent departures were also very likely influenced by it.
Those include:

* Ari Fleischer (White House press secretary)  who
announced his departure on May 17 th ;

*
 Mitch Daniels (White House
budget director) who announced his resignation on May 6 th (after The Washington Post had received the ad copy); and,


*  Christie Todd Whitman (EPA Administrator) who announced her departure on
May 21.

While it would be unreasonable to assume
that our ad was solely responsible for their departures, we do know that the ad
addressed issues that touched all four of them directly. In the case of Daniels
it was announced that he had been subpoenaed in a stock fraud investigation
right after his resignation. That had been in the works for some time. The point
is that our ad highlighted either the personal liabilities each person carried
with them, or the risks inherent in the position itself. It made a difference!
These departures going in to an election cycle are the administration’s way of
shedding liabilities and possibly (in Whitman’s case) someone saying, “I just
can’t do this anymore!”

That’s part of what ads like
this can do.


The Game

Ken at our ad agency has put together an
amazing ad buy, the Top 12 newspapers (readership wise) in the United States:


Atlanta Journal Constitution
Boston Globe

Chicago Tribune  
Dallas Morning News  
Los Angeles Times
  
Miami Herald
New York Times   
Philadelphia
Inquirer   
San Francisco Chronicle  
Seattle Times

Minneapolis Tribune
Arizona Republic

Together, the readership of these newspapers is between 25-40 Million
people!

If someone purchased these full-page ads
individually in these newspapers it would cost well over $500,000. We got a
price of just $100,000 for all 12 cities!


Let’s Do The Math

FTW has a little
over 9,000 subscribers. If everyone put in JUST $10.00 (ten) dollars we would
have $90,000 to run the ads!  That’s it. That simple.

9,000 FTW subscribers could affect the thinking of 40 MILLION
AMERICANS! Now that’s saying something! That is voting with your money!



What Spirit!

A gentleman in Seattle phoned to say
he and his wife discussed foregoing their summer vacation plans and put their
$4,000 towards running the FTW ad in Seattle. Another long time
subscriber has pledged several thousand more to see the ad run in more places. A
kid in Florida is putting on a benefit concert with his band to raise money to
see the ad run in Florida.


Reality

This is our time. This is our
chance to reach and influence many, many millions of Americans (and
readers world-wide)…and to wake them up!

We know
that not all of you will send in $10 to make this happen.

We also know that many of you will and can gladly offer several hundred
or several thousand dollars to make this happen. Please do.

This may be our last chance at free speech.

NEVER in the history of America has such a message had the opportunity to
reach this many people in print!

A separate account
has been set up through our advertising agency to handle all of the donations.
The money will be used EXCLUSIVELY to buy ad space.

We have 30 days to raise $100,000 to buy the ad space. This is completely
possible! The Mouse That Roared…will make a difference. Be part of this.


Make checks payable to: More Than News
Productions – memo: FTW AD

Send to:


From The Wilderness
Ad Donation
PO Box
6061-350
Sherman Oaks, CA 91413

You can also
donate online at:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/FTW_Ad.html

Note: Credit cards can be used to make
donations but once the ad buys are placed, no refunds can be
given.

William Rivers Pitt – Baseball and Politics: At the Turning of the Tide

May 23, 2003 at 12:25 pm
Contributed by: Chris
Howdy
Defenders of Truth, Justice, and the American Way!

 

 

Well
it’s been another fairly long spell since I sent anything out to the list. Not
that there’s been a dearth of things to send you, I only wish it were so. No,
things have been steadily going from bad to worse, no mistake about it, and
lately I’ve had another period where keeping up with the reading, alone, uses up
my available energy, and the writing and sending suffer. But fear not: there’s
plenty of fight left in me yet. I hope you feel the same way.
This one seemed like an appropriate way to break the fast. I hope we can all all “capture the
mentality of the Red Sox fan” and get busy! And if all this stuff is too much to
absorb all at once, let me suggest that you do what I do: print it out, put it
on the coffee table or in the bathroom or wherever, and pick it up when you’ve
got a few minutes. If we don’t educate ourselves, we will surely remain in the
dark, because that’s exactly where the powers that be and the major media are
exerting all their will to keep us.
More to come,
–C

(more…)

FTW and the Washington Post

May 22, 2003 at 9:43 pm
Contributed by:

Folks,


This is a very interesting story.


You’re probably familiar, by now, with Michael Ruppert and From The Wilderness Publications. They’re the ones who produced the video “Truth and Lies of 9-11” (which is a very interesting piece that I highly recommend).


Through a contributor, they were recently able to publish an ad in the Washington Post, to make their points heard. The story about how it ran, and the effects that it had, is almost as interesting as the substance of their ad. Check it out. I would like to hope, with the authors, that this will set a precedent to motivate political action groups who care to preserve our liberties and throw these evildoers out of office.


Subscriber Buys FTW Full Page Ad
in The Washington Post


–C

Barbs Aside, 9/11 Questions Aren\’t Going Away

May 22, 2003 at 9:34 pm
Contributed by: Chris
Folks,
 
There are a lot of questions
yet to be answered about what happened on 9/11. Yet, not only are
the major media apparently not interested in them, but the Bush
administration has actively blocked any real investigation. Why?
It’s a very curious situation. While the shell game that they’ve
been playing for the last year or so may have been largely
effective in keeping our attention elsewhere, I have to believe
that no true patriot will settle for less than a proper
explanation, and that this won’t become another question for the
ages, like “who killed Kennedy?” For all we know, both events have
been obscured by the same spooks.
 
Write your Congressmen and
tell them that you really DO want to know what
happened.
 
First, read this
article:
 

Then read the below. It’s clear
that anyone who questions the host of contradictory stories that
the Bush administration has been feeding us better be wearing a
flak jacket.

–C
Barbs aside, 9/11 questions aren’t going away

MICHELE LANDSBERG

I was just listening to the latest CIA transmissions through the
fillings in my molars last week when I accidentally intercepted a
secret internal memo from the National Post.

It went something like this: “Post readership hits bottom,
journalistic integrity under question, editor dumped, columnists
fleeing sinking ship — attack Toronto Star writer at
once!”

Seriously, if I may be serious for a moment about the National
Post, it was not so surprising to find myself the subject of a
hostile editorial in that paper after I wrote about my unanswered
9/11 questions. The Post is a staunch voice for Bush America and
brooks no dissenting voices. In tabloid fashion, it headed its
editorial
“Michele Landsberg Loses It.”

I fully expected to be labelled a “conspiracy theorist” after
interviewing Vision TV’s Barrie Zwicker and writing about his
challenges to the official version of what happened at the World
Trade Center. But I was surprised by the nature of the ensuing
attacks. The Post, and the dozen or so readers who were similarly
enraged by my column, didn’t come up with a single argument or
documented fact. It was all quivering jowls, wild insults and
expostulations.

The Post’s entire argument, once I filtered out the verbiage
(“crock”, “nonsense,” “comical,” “embarrassing” and, that good old
standby, “blinding hatred of the United States”) came down to this:
captured Al Qaeda commanders have confessed to the 9/11 crimes. End
of story.

Except that what I was asking was a little different. Few of us
doubt that murderous Saudi Arabian terrorists executed this
massacre. But I wanted to know more. Why did the U.S. military,
with the most powerful arsenal in world history, fail to prevent or
at least try to stop a series of hijackings and crashes that went
on for nearly two hours? Where was the Air Force?

If President Bush and his cabinet were not, at this very moment,
still trying to censor, suppress and delay the publication of the
Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11, if there had been honest
disclosure and straight stories from the beginning, perhaps all
these “dark questions,” as the Post puts it, would never have
arisen.

The great majority of people, sickened and overwhelmed by the
horror of the attacks, unquestioningly accepts the White House
version. Many thousands, however, are patiently stitching together
the documented evidence and noting the huge holes in the fabric of
that official story.

Just ask yourself how the United States, with its vast intelligence
establishment and spy power, could have been caught unawares in
such a drastic state of unpreparedness on Sept. 11.

President Bush, or, as he delights to call himself, the
commander-in-chief, must certainly have been briefed about the
ominous drumbeat of terrorist threats that were accumulating over
the spring and summer of 2001. According to the report by Eleanor
Hill, staff director for the Joint Inquiry, there had been “an
unprecedented rise in threat” during that summer. U.S. government
agencies had been warned by the intelligence community that there
was a high probability of “spectacular” terrorist attacks by Al
Qaeda “designed to inflict mass casualties. … Attacks will occur
with little or no warning.”

The warnings included the possibility that airplanes would be used
as weapons. There was even an April, 2001, intelligence report that
terrorists planned “a spectacular and traumatic attack” like the
first World Trade Center bombing, as well as an earlier report a
group of Arabs planned to fly a plane into the World Trade Center
or CIA headquarters.

According to Hill, these warnings went to “senior government
officials” whom she was not allowed to name.

On that fateful morning, the first pictures of the burning tower
were broadcast at 8:48 a.m. By then, according to a carefully
documented timeline at http://www.cooperativeresearch.net , the
Federal Aviation Administration, NORAD (joint U.S.-Canada air
defence), the Pentagon, the White House and the Secret Service all
knew that three commercial passenger jets had been hijacked.

Here begin the obfuscation and deceit, in small matters and large,
that permeate the official narrative.

Disinformation was spewing all over the place that week after
Sept.11. Serious newspapers actually reported that one hijacker’s
passport fluttered down from the roaring inferno to be found in the
rubble by sharp-eyed intelligence officers.

The key question to me was one of air defence. There are, after
all, standard procedures in the event of airplane emergencies. The
FAA and NORAD have clear rules about any plane that suddenly loses
radio contact with the tower or veers more than 15 degrees from its
course.

Once the air traffic controller detects an emergency, he or she
must inform aviation officials who alert NORAD. Fighter jets are
then sent up to check out the straying plane, signal to it with
dipped wings, escort it back on course or even force it down.

“We scramble aircraft to respond to any potential threat,” said
Marine Corps Maj. Mike Snyder, a NORAD spokesman, in an interview
with the Boston Globe.

But it didn’t happen that way on Sept. 11. The first reports from
authoritative sources (NORAD’s Snyder, Vice-President Dick Cheney
and, most significantly, Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers) all
stated that no jets took off until it was too late.

Just two days after the catastrophe, on Sept. 13, Gen. Myers was
confirmed as the new chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. On that
day, he told the Senate Armed Forces Committee that no Air Force
jets got into the air until after the attack on the Pentagon.

On Sept. 15, The Boston Globe reported on a strange contradiction.
The Globe quoted NORAD spokesman Snyder, who insisted that “the
command did not immediately scramble any fighters even though it
was alerted to a hijacking 10 minutes before the first plane …
slammed into the World Trade Center.” He said the fighters remained
on the ground until after the Pentagon was hit at 9:40 a.m. But The
Globe also expressed puzzlement over the new official story that
had just emerged. Now Americans were being told that fighter jets
roared up from Cape Cod and from Virginia, but just didn’t make it
in time.

Furthermore, no explanation was ever offered for the bizarre fact
that Andrews Air Force base, whose job it is to defend the U.S.
capital just 19 kilometres away, had no fighter jets ready to go
into action — despite the months of serious warnings of
impending terrorist attacks.

And these are the people we’re to trust with a missile defence
system? They can’t even get their stories straight, let alone
defend their air space.

According to The Post and to some of their hot-eyed followers, to
ask these questions is to indulge in “poisonous delusions … that
do not belong in a mainstream newspaper.” I’m not sure they’re the
proper arbiters of mainstream journalism, but I’m willing to be
“unintentionally comical” in pursuit of understanding.

And Nostradamus rocks!

Just kidding.

Michele Landsberg ‘s column usually appears in the
Star Saturday and Sunday. Her e-mail address is
mlandsb@thestar.ca

Additional articles by Michele Landsberg

Patriot Act II (draft)

April 29, 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) (Word document, 418K)


–C

\"Practice to Deceive\" – Tactics of the Bush Hawks

April 17, 2003 at 12:25 am
Contributed by:

Folks,
 

Do you feel like you’re in school
yet? How’s the syllabus treatin’ ya?

 

Well, give this a must-read star.
Print it out, put it by the toilet, whatever, but do read it. It’s a very good
explication of the deceptive tactics the Bush hawks have used to advance their
agenda. Once you know their game, you can see it happening constantly. The
propoganda is thick, and the gang in charge, as thick as theives. It’s truly
galling, hard to swallow, that our leaders can be so guileful, so cynical, and
above all, so sure that they can put one over on the benighted American public.
I hope, vainly perhaps, that journalism like this, and passing it around on
email, has the power put the lie to that.

 

–C

 

Practice to Deceive
Chaos in the
Middle East is not the Bush hawks’ nightmare scenario–it’s their plan.


By Joshua
Micah Marshall

 

 

Bush administration turning to mystics to find Osama

April 16, 2003 at 10:11 am
Contributed by:

Folks,

 

Now
we’re having some real fun. We’ve got Biblical mystics prognosticating for the
Defense Dept! Love it. (Hey, this reminds me of another guy who consulted with
religious scholars to plan his military campaigns: http://www.crystalinks.com/hitler.html)

 

–C
 

—–Original Message—–

 


From
“the skeptics Dictionary” newsletter: 4/15


 It
has been reported
that on February 21, 2003, Michael Drosnin (of Bible Code infamy) was invited by
Paul Wolfowitz, the U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, to address some top
military intelligence officials on such things as how to find Osama bin Laden by
reading embedded codes in the Torah. He also told them that the code reveals
that Hussein will be destroyed. According to Drosnin, his audience “took it very
seriously. They’re practical people and I wanted to give them something of
practical use.” As a result of the meeting, Drosnin says,
U.S. and
Israeli intelligence forces are hot on bin Laden’s trail. I guess this is what
is meant by faith-based defense.


Drosnin is
a former police reporter for the Washington
Post
and former writer for The
Wall Street Journal
. He is undeterred either by those who claim that
they can get the same kinds of “predictions” from Moby Dick or by those who point out that
the Bible forbids soothsaying.


Barry Levy,
dean of
McGill University’s religious studies department and a
Torah scholar, says, “I’m surprised to learn that the Pentagon is engaging in
sorcery as part of its military strategy. There is nothing particularly
spiritual or convincing or valid about this. It’s entertainment.” Maybe, but
some military
and political
leaders take it quite seriously.
[Thanks to John Renish.]


 

Krugman: Behind Our Backs

April 16, 2003 at 1:26 am
Contributed by:

Folks,

 

For
those of you who weren’t completely overwhelmed by last night’s barrage, here’s
just one more.

 


 

“For the overwhelming political lesson of the last year is that war works
— that is, it’s an excellent cover for the Republican Party’s domestic political
agenda. In fact, war works in two ways. The public rallies around the flag,
which means the President and his party; and the public’s attention is diverted
from other issues.

As long as the nation is at war, then,
it will be hard to get the public to notice what the flagwavers are doing behind
our backs. And it just so happens that the “Bush doctrine,” which calls for
preventive war against countries that may someday pose a threat, offers the
possibility of a series of wars against nasty regimes with weak armies.


Someday the public will
figure all this out. But it may be a very long wait. ” 


–C


 

Why we may never regain the liberties that we\’ve lost

April 15, 2003 at 8:54 pm
Contributed by:

Folks,


Here’s some worthwhile journalism on activism and our loss of civil rights.


“The Bush administration’s attitude, assisted by a Congress that long since
abandoned any commitment to liberty, is that government has the right to
know absolutely everything about you and that government can violate your
fundamental rights with impunity as long as the cause is deemed worthy.”


http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/5571471.htm


–C

How neoconservatives conquered Washington — and launched a war

April 15, 2003 at 2:06 am
Contributed by:

Folks,

 

Here’s
the second one. Of all the articles I’ve sent out about our foreign policy
problems, this is probably the best. Every word of it worth your time. Read it,
please.


How
neoconservatives conquered Washington — and launched a war

First they converted an ignorant, inexperienced president to their
pro-Israel, hawkish worldview. Then 9/11 allowed them to claim Iraq threatened
the U.S. The rest is on CNN tonight.


By Michael
Lind


April 9, 2003
 |  America’s allies and enemies alike
are baffled. What is going on in the United States? Who is making foreign
policy? And what are they trying to achieve? Quasi-Marxist explanations
involving big oil or American capitalism are mistaken. Yes, American oil
companies and contractors will accept the spoils of the kill in Iraq. But the
oil business, with its Arabist bias, did not push for this war any more than it
supports the Bush administration’s close alliance with Ariel Sharon. Further,
President Bush and Vice President Cheney are not genuine “Texas oil men” but
career politicians who, in between stints in public life, would have used their
connections to enrich themselves as figureheads in the wheat business, if they
had been residents of Kansas, or in tech companies, had they been Californians.


Equally wrong is the theory that the American and European civilizations are
evolving in opposite directions. The thesis of Robert Kagan, the neoconservative
propagandist, that Americans are martial and Europeans pacifist, is complete
nonsense. A majority of Americans voted for either Al Gore or Ralph Nader in
2000. Were it not for the overrepresentation of sparsely populated, right-wing
states in both the presidential electoral college and the Senate, the White
House and the Senate today would be controlled by Democrats, whose views and
values, on everything from war to the welfare state, are very close to those of
western Europeans.


Both the economic-determinist theory and the clash-of-cultures theory are
reassuring: They assume that the recent revolution in U.S. foreign policy is the
result of obscure but understandable forces in an orderly world. The truth is
more alarming. As a result of several bizarre and unforeseeable contingencies —
such as the selection rather than election of George W. Bush, and Sept. 11 —
the foreign policy of the world’s only global power is being made by a small
clique that is unrepresentative of either the U.S. population or the mainstream
foreign policy establishment.


The core group now in charge consists of neoconservative defense
intellectuals. (They are called “neoconservatives” because many of them started
off as anti-Stalinist leftists or liberals before moving to the far right.)
Inside the government, the chief defense intellectuals include Paul Wolfowitz,
the deputy secretary of defense. He is the defense mastermind of the Bush
administration; Donald Rumsfeld is an elderly figurehead who holds the position
of defense secretary only because Wolfowitz himself is too controversial. Others
include Douglas Feith, No. 3 at the Pentagon; Lewis “Scooter” Libby, a Wolfowitz
protégé who is Cheney’s chief of staff; John R. Bolton, a right-winger assigned
to the State Department to keep Colin Powell in check; and Elliott Abrams,
recently appointed to head Middle East policy at the National Security Council.
On the outside are James Woolsey, the former CIA director, who has tried
repeatedly to link both 9/11 and the anthrax letters in the U.S. to Saddam
Hussein, and Richard Perle, who has just resigned his unpaid chairmanship of a
defense department advisory body after a lobbying scandal. Most of these
“experts” never served in the military. But their headquarters is now the
civilian defense secretary’s office, where these Republican political appointees
are despised and distrusted by the largely Republican career soldiers.


Most neoconservative defense intellectuals have their roots on the left, not
the right. They are products of the influential Jewish-American sector of the
Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s, which morphed into anti-communist
liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and finally into a kind of militaristic
and imperial right with no precedents in American culture or political history.
Their admiration for the Israeli Likud party’s tactics, including preventive
warfare such as Israel’s 1981 raid on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, is mixed
with odd bursts of ideological enthusiasm for “democracy.” They call their
revolutionary ideology “Wilsonianism” (after President Woodrow Wilson), but it
is really Trotsky’s theory of the permanent revolution mingled with the
far-right Likud strain of Zionism. Genuine American Wilsonians believe in
self-determination for people such as the Palestinians.


The neocon defense intellectuals, as well as being in or around the actual
Pentagon, are at the center of a metaphorical “pentagon” of the Israel lobby and
the religious right, plus conservative think tanks, foundations and media
empires. Think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) provide
homes for neocon “in-and-outers” when they are out of government (Perle is a
fellow at AEI). The money comes not so much from corporations as from
decades-old conservative foundations, such as the Bradley and Olin foundations,
which spend down the estates of long-dead tycoons. Neoconservative foreign
policy does not reflect business interests in any direct way. The neocons are
ideologues, not opportunists.


The major link between the conservative think tanks and the Israel lobby is
the Washington-based and Likud-supporting Jewish Institute for National Security
Affairs (Jinsa), which co-opts many non-Jewish defense experts by sending them
on trips to Israel. It flew out the retired general Jay Garner, now slated by
Bush to be proconsul of occupied Iraq. In October 2000, he cosigned a Jinsa
letter that began: “We … believe that during the current upheavals in Israel,
the Israel Defense Forces have exercised remarkable restraint in the face of
lethal violence orchestrated by the leadership of [the] Palestinian Authority.”


The Israel lobby itself is divided into Jewish and Christian wings. Wolfowitz
and Feith have close ties to the Jewish-American Israel lobby. Wolfowitz, who
has relatives in Israel, has served as the Bush administration’s liaison to the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Feith was given an award by the
Zionist Organization of America, citing him as a “pro-Israel activist.” While
out of power in the Clinton years, Feith collaborated with Perle to coauthor a
policy paper for Likud that advised the Israeli government to end the Oslo peace
process, reoccupy the territories, and crush Yasser Arafat’s government.


Such experts are not typical of Jewish-Americans, who mostly voted for Gore
in 2000. The most fervent supporters of Likud in the Republican electorate are
Southern Protestant fundamentalists. The religious right believes that God gave
all of Palestine to the Jews, and fundamentalist congregations spend millions to
subsidize Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.


The final corner of the neoconservative pentagon is occupied by several
right-wing media empires, with roots — odd as it seems — in the British
Commonwealth and South Korea. Rupert Murdoch disseminates propaganda through his
Fox television network. His magazine, the Weekly Standard — edited by William
Kristol, the former chief of staff of Dan Quayle (vice president, 1989-1993) —
acts as a mouthpiece for defense intellectuals such as Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith
and Woolsey as well as for Sharon’s government. The National Interest (of which
I was executive editor, 1991-1994) is now funded by Conrad Black, who owns the
Jerusalem Post and the Hollinger empire in Britain and Canada.


Strangest of all is the media network centered on the Washington Times —
owned by the South Korean messiah (and ex-convict) the Rev. Sun Myung Moon —
which owns the newswire UPI. UPI is now run by John O’Sullivan, the ghostwriter
for Margaret Thatcher who once worked as an editor for Conrad Black in Canada.
Through such channels, the “gotcha!” style of right-wing British journalism, and
its Europhobic substance, have contaminated the US conservative movement.


The corners of the neoconservative pentagon were linked together in the 1990s
by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), run by Kristol out of the
Weekly Standard offices. Using a P.R. technique pioneered by their Trotskyist
predecessors, the neocons published a series of public letters whose signatories
often included Wolfowitz and other future members of the Bush foreign policy
team. They called for the U.S. to invade and occupy Iraq and to support Israel’s
campaigns against the Palestinians (dire warnings about China were another
favorite). During Clinton’s two terms, these fulminations were ignored by the
foreign policy establishment and the mainstream media. Now they are frantically
being studied.


How did the neocon defense intellectuals — a small group at odds with most
of the U.S. foreign policy elite, Republican as well as Democratic — manage to
capture the Bush administration? Few supported Bush during the presidential
primaries. They feared that the second Bush would be like the first — a wimp
who had failed to occupy Baghdad in the first Gulf War and who had pressured
Israel into the Oslo peace process — and that his administration, again like
his father’s, would be dominated by moderate Republican realists such as Powell,
James Baker and Brent Scowcroft. They supported the maverick senator John McCain
until it became clear that Bush would get the nomination.


Then they had a stroke of luck — Cheney was put in charge of the
presidential transition (the period between the election in November and the
accession to office in January). Cheney used this opportunity to stack the
administration with his hard-line allies. Instead of becoming the de facto
president in foreign policy, as many had expected, Secretary of State Powell
found himself boxed in by Cheney’s right-wing network, including Wolfowitz,
Perle, Feith, Bolton and Libby.


The neocons took advantage of Bush’s ignorance and inexperience. Unlike his
father, a Second World War veteran who had been ambassador to China, director of
the CIA, and vice president, George W was a thinly educated playboy who had
failed repeatedly in business before becoming the governor of Texas, a largely
ceremonial position (the state’s lieutenant governor has more power). His father
is essentially a northeastern moderate Republican; George W, raised in west
Texas, absorbed the Texan cultural combination of machismo, anti-intellectualism
and overt religiosity. The son of upper-class Episcopalian parents, he converted
to Southern fundamentalism in a midlife crisis. Fervent Christian Zionism, along
with an admiration for macho Israeli soldiers that sometimes coexists with
hostility to liberal Jewish-American intellectuals, is a feature of the Southern
culture.


The younger Bush was tilting away from Powell and toward Wolfowitz (“Wolfie,”
as he calls him) even before 9/11 gave him something he had lacked: a mission in
life other than following in his dad’s footsteps. There are signs of
estrangement between the cautious father and the crusading son: Last year,
veterans of the first Bush administration, including Baker, Scowcroft and
Lawrence Eagleburger, warned publicly against an invasion of Iraq without
authorization from Congress and the U.N.


It is not clear that George W fully understands the grand strategy that
Wolfowitz and other aides are unfolding. He seems genuinely to believe that
there was an imminent threat to the U.S. from Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass
destruction,” something the leading neocons say in public but are far too
intelligent to believe themselves. The Project for the New American Century
urged an invasion of Iraq throughout the Clinton years, for reasons that had
nothing to do with possible links between Saddam and Osama bin Laden. Public
letters signed by Wolfowitz and others called on the U.S. to invade and occupy
Iraq, to bomb Hezbollah bases in Lebanon, and to threaten states such as Syria
and Iran with U.S. attacks if they continued to sponsor terrorism. Claims that
the purpose is not to protect the American people but to make the Middle East
safe for Israel are dismissed by the neocons as vicious anti-Semitism. Yet
Syria, Iran and Iraq are bitter enemies, with their weapons pointed at each
other, and the terrorists they sponsor target Israel rather than the U.S. The
neocons urge war with Iran next, though by any rational measurement North
Korea’s new nuclear arsenal is, for the U.S., a far greater problem.


So that is the bizarre story of how neoconservatives took over Washington and
steered the U.S. into a Middle Eastern war unrelated to any plausible threat to
the U.S. and opposed by the public of every country in the world except Israel.
The frightening thing is the role of happenstance and personality. After the
al-Qaida attacks, any U.S. president would likely have gone to war to topple bin
Laden’s Taliban protectors in Afghanistan. But everything that the U.S. has done
since then would have been different had America’s 18th century electoral rules
not given Bush the presidency and had Cheney not used the transition period to
turn the foreign policy executive into a PNAC reunion.


For a British equivalent, one would have to imagine a Tory government, with
Downing Street and Whitehall controlled by followers of the Rev. Ian Paisley,
extreme Euroskeptics, empire loyalists and Blimpish military types — all
determined, for a variety of strategic or religious reasons, to invade Egypt.
Their aim would be to regain the Suez Canal as the first step in a campaign to
restore the British empire. Yes, it really is that weird.


A version of this story appeared in the New Statesman.



– – – – – – – – – – –




About the writer
Michael Lind, the Whitehead Fellow at the
New America Foundation in Washington, is the author of “Made in Texas:
George W. Bush and the Southern Takeover of American Politics.”

"How did we get here?" French political commentary

April 15, 2003 at 2:03 am
Contributed by:

Here’s the first article. It deals mainly with French politics, but it also address the entire range of the current situation, including our neo-conservative leadership, anti-Semitism, and other things.
–CCOMMENTARY

Lest We Forget
By MICHAEL GONZALEZ

BRUSSELS — "How did we get here?" asked a former French minister in a newspaper column recently. "Here" is a situation in which French Jews are being beaten up in the streets of Paris and in which President Jacques Chirac has to write to Queen Elizabeth II to apologize for the desecration of British tombs in France, and in which one-third of the French have been pulling for Saddam Hussein to win.

An even better question is who brought us here. The former environment minister, Corinne Lepage, lays the blame on the government and an obeisant media for "having wanted to stigmatize American policy in excessive fashion." But it’s time to name names.

* * *

Mr. Chirac brought us here, as did his foreign minister Dominique de Villepin. In Belgium the foreign and defense and prime ministers — Louis Michel, André Flahaut and Guy Verhofstadt — have brought their country to shame too. And that’s just the start.

Mr. de Villepin, the pin-up boy of diplomacy in "progressive" circles, was not just content to travel the world in an attempt to derail U.S. policy. Reportedly, he also has made instructive comments that make clear "how we got here." Mr. de Villepin, sources say, last week told members of the National Assembly that "hawks" in the U.S. administration are "in the hands of [Ariel] Sharon." According to the satirical newspaper Le Canard Enchaine, he went so far as to attack a "pro-Zionist" lobby made up of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, White House staffer Elliot Abrams, and former Pentagon adviser Richard Perle, all Jews.

But it’s not just a juif thing. Mr. de Villepin — who claims in his book "The Cry of the Gargoyle" to be a fan of both Machiavelli and Napoleon — never shies from messianic statements. He told legislators that the fight over Iraq was actually one against "Anglo-Saxon liberalism," an Assembly member told me.

But indignant reactions are now being heard. An editorial on Radio France Internationale noticed that the phrase "the Anglo-American forces," constantly used instead of "coalition forces," is borrowed straight from Vichy propaganda. In her own j’accuse for Le Figaro, Ms. Lepage said that to the errors of the media and the leaders, "one can add the pacifist demonstrations, which have nothing peaceful about them." She could "bear witness to the fact that these demonstrations are far from gatherings of real defenders of the rights of man or of peace. These are hordes orchestrated by the security services of Islamicist groups which…shout extremely violent slogans in which racial and anti-Semitic hatred is expressed without the least taboo."

Small wonder that the Interior Ministry itself says a mere spark could "turn anti-Americanism in the suburbs into uncontrolled violence." That observation comes too late for Noam Levy, a Jew beaten with an iron bar while at an anti-war demonstration. He said he was shocked by "the anti-Zionist slogans." (He should check with the Quai d’Orsay about the provenance of these feelings.) And it’s too late for the families of Britons who died defending France in World War I, and whose tombs near Calais were vandalized. Among the graffiti on a cenotaph: "Dig up your rubbish, it’s contaminating our soil."

"France," wrote Mr. Chirac to Queen Elizabeth II with all the pomp — not to mention pomposity — at his command, "knows what it owes to the sacrifice and courage of British soldiers who came to help her recover her liberty in the fight against barbarity…From the French people and from me personally, I offer you my deepest regrets." Too late. Mr. Chirac has himself refused to say which side he backs in the war. No wonder a third of the French tell pollsters that they want Saddam to win. Mr. Chirac is basking in 60% approval ratings, but he’s paid for them dearly. Demonstrators in the street shout "Long
live Chirac, stop the Jews!"
In Belgium, I’ve witnessed the defense and foreign ministers feed the beast of anti-Americanism, only to protest later that they want to defang it. At a debate last month at the University Libre de Bruxelles, I saw Messrs. Michel and Flahaut inflame a crowd with their comments. Belgians, said the former, are beginning to look on the U.S. as they once did the Soviet Union. "I am beginning to fear the U.S.," he added, his voice rising, to much applause from a 2,000-strong crowd. Not to be outdone, Mr. Flahaut promised to do all he could to kick Tony Blair out of the Socialist International.

By "debate," incidentally, I mean a representative of Republicans Abroad and me on one side, and on the other the two ministers, two pro-government university professors, a journalist who was supposed to act as moderator, and Iraq’s ambassador to Belgium. The Iraqi was twice interrupted by the crowd with applause; I was accused of being a CIA agent. When one student stood up to complain that a representative of Saddam’s regime was applauded while I was booed, the crowd shouted her down.

Can anyone wonder at the crowd’s response, given such leadership? Mr. Flahaut called for bigger anti-U.S. demonstrations that weekend. The government needed them, he said. His government was doing more than just standing by. Just as in places like Castro’s Cuba, parents at some Belgian schools received requests for their children to attend the demonstration. As for Mr. Michel, he personally quashed a revolt in his Mouvement Reformateur at a party meeting last month. One politician who was there told me the majority wanted the Belgian government to have a more nuanced policy and not to be in such opposition to the U.S. But Mr. Michel threatened, cajoled, and got his way. This is why there hasn’t been a backbench revolt in Belgium and France, though yesterday a Belgian politician tried to redress the balance by delivering letters of support to the British and U.S. embassies.

A senior Belgian official told me last week that Mr. Michel "now realizes he’s gone too far, that he’s made comments he ought not to have made, and is trying to calm things down." Too late. His government situated itself against the war and the U.S. out of a long tradition of subservience to the French and out of fear that otherwise its large Muslim population would riot. "The people then may react by voting for the far right," a Belgian official told me.

Explicable, perhaps. But how immoral to act in such a manner, and how dangerous.

The increasingly visible joy of liberated Iraqis is making clear the moral bankruptcy of those who purported to take the high ground by prolonging Saddam’s rule. The diplomatic blunders of Brussels and Paris are coming home to roost. This is how we got here.

Mr. Gonzalez is the deputy editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal Europe.

URL for this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB104993340997739000,00.html

Updated April 10, 2003

Copyright 2003 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

The tar-baby of Judea

April 15, 2003 at 1:48 am
Contributed by:

Folks,

I’m about to send you two articles (if Outlook would stop crashing) that raise a lot of accusations of Zionism and Anti-Semitism.

As one who was raised in the Christian faith, I find much of this confusing. Much of the time, I really have to struggle to understand these accusations…where they come from, what relevance they have to the discussion at hand. I’m grateful for the vigorous input I receive from the Jews on this list. Gradually, it’s starting to make sense, much as living in a fun-house of mirrors for a few years can start to make sense. It’s a deep, complex, highly interwoven set of relationships that Jews live with.

How all that maps to American policy, I still don’t claim to understand. But these articles shed a little light.

Happy reading…keep those cards ‘n letters coming…

–C

Praise the Lord…and pass the bathwater

April 15, 2003 at 1:04 am
Contributed by:

OK, so this isn’t really the kind of story I normally forward…but it was too funny to pass up.
Praise the Lord…and pass the bathwater

The \"Damascus Road\" to American Empire

April 15, 2003 at 12:56 am
Contributed by:

Folks,


I’m not quite sure how I came to this article, I found it while poking around on the .ru sites somewhere. But having read it, all I could say was “Wow.” Harsh, bare-toothed, yet pithy prose, tight reasoning, good use of metaphor, a firm and very current grip on reality, and, I daresay, the ring of truth. All in under 1000 words. (And that list of links at the end should keep you busy for a while.) Read it!


Global Eye — Damascus Road


By Chris Floyd

The Moscow Times.com – Metropolis
–C

US-Iraq Relations Timeline

April 15, 2003 at 12:20 am
Contributed by:

Folks,


I just saw a ticker headline go by on CNN, something to the effect of ‘Chevron-Texaco settles out of court on illegal trading with Iraq’. I went looking for a source…and I haven’t found it yet (anybody?). But I did find this, and it’s just the kind of thing I’ve been looking for. A nice, graphical timeline, showing the history of US-Iraq relations. Brilliant. And ya gotta love the subtitle: “Or Why We Shouldn’t Think That The People That Got Us Into This Mess Will Get Us Out”


US-Iraq Relations Timeline


(Sorry, it’s another horrid PDF file)


–C

Project for the New American Century

April 14, 2003 at 10:53 pm
Contributed by:

Folks,

Speaking of the
open conspiracy that is our military-industrial government, this outfit should be at the very top of everyone’s
watch list. This is the gang of Wolfowitz, Cheney, Perle, et. al. who is
responsible for our current grab at Empire and a Pax Americana,
the
Project for the New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org). Good article,
definitely recommend it:


http://www.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=2514&lang=en


Interesting thing about that Web
site…apparently it’s a depository of information gathered by the GRU, the
espionage arm of the Russian military. Basically the equivalent of the CIA. But
with a rather different mission, and with a lot less domestic spin. See
http://www.dailykos.com/archives/002293.html for
more about them…and some other interesting facts about war casualties in major
battles of history, as contrasted with the war on Iraq.


–C

Spoils of War by BOB HERBERT

April 14, 2003 at 10:38 pm
Contributed by:

Folks,

 

After
a long weekend of “getting away from it all” in a nice cozy cabin in
Mendocino, CA with no water and no power, a woodburning stove, my trusty
axe, lots of drums, and the company of good friends, I’m refreshed and…facing
a huge backlog of stuff to send you.

 

Well,
it was nice to clear my head anyway. I hope you find a similar chance soon.

 

In the
meantime…read on. This is a good summary of some of the key players In Control
right now, as well as some of their special interest groups. If you’re one of
those with a tendency toward believing in shadowy government conspiracies, you
might want to pay special attention to this one. Like the Project for the New
American Century, the ‘conspiracy’ is actually right out in the open, you just
probably haven’t heard of it. Ever heard of the Defense Policy Group? Nah, me
neither. Here are some of the players.

 

–C

 

Spoils of War April 10, 2003
By BOB HERBERT

 

Follow the money.

 

Former Secretary of State George
Shultz is on the board of directors of the Bechtel Group, the largest contractor
in the U.S. and one of the finalists in the competition to land a fat contract
to help in the rebuilding of Iraq.

 

He is also the chairman of the
advisory board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a fiercely pro-war
group with close ties to the White House. The committee, formed last year, made
it clear from the beginning that it sought more than the ouster of Saddam’s
regime. It was committed, among other things, “to work beyond the liberation of
Iraq to the reconstruction of its economy.”

 

War is a tragedy for some and a boon
for others. I asked Mr. Shultz if the fact that he was an advocate of the war
while sitting on the board of a company that would benefit from it left him
concerned about the appearance of a conflict of interest.

 

“I don’t know that Bechtel would
particularly benefit from it,” he said. “But if there’s work that’s needed to be
done, Bechtel is the type of company that could do it. But nobody looks at it as
something you benefit from.”

 

Jack Sheehan, a retired Marine Corps
general, is a senior vice president at Bechtel. He’s also a member of the
Defense Policy Board, a government-appointed group that advises the Pentagon on
major defense issues. Its members are selected by the under secretary of defense
for policy, currently Douglas Feith, and approved by the secretary of defense,
Donald Rumsfeld.

 

Most Americans have never heard of
the Defense Policy Group. Its meetings are classified. The members disclose
their business interests to the Pentagon, but that information is not available
to the public.

 

The Center for Public Integrity, a
private watchdog group in Washington, recently disclosed that of the 30 members
of the board, at least 9 are linked to companies that have won more than $76
billion in defense contracts in 2001 and 2002.

 

Richard Perle was the chairman of the
board until just a few weeks ago, when he resigned the chairmanship amid
allegations of a conflict of interest. He is still on the board.

 

Another member is the former C.I.A.
director, James Woolsey. He’s also a principal in the Paladin Capital Group, a
venture capital firm that, as the Center for Public Integrity noted, is
soliciting investments for companies that specialize in domestic security. Mr.
Woolsey is also a member of the Committee to Liberate Iraq and is reported to be
in line to play a role in the postwar occupation.

 

The war against Iraq has become one
of the clearest examples ever of the influence of the military-industrial
complex that President Dwight Eisenhower warned against so eloquently in his
farewell address in 1961. This iron web of relationships among powerful
individuals inside and outside the government operates with very little public
scrutiny and is saturated with conflicts of interest.

 

Their goals may or may not coincide
with the best interests of the American people. Think of the divergence of
interests, for example, between the grunts who are actually fighting this war,
who have been eating sand and spilling their blood in the desert, and the power
brokers who fought like crazy to make the war happen and are profiting from it
every step of the way.

 

There aren’t a lot of rich kids in
that desert. The U.S. military is largely working-class. The power brokers
homing in on $100 billion worth of postwar reconstruction contracts are
not.

 

The Pentagon and its allies are close
to achieving what they wanted all along, control of the nation of Iraq and its
bounty, which is the wealth and myriad forms of power that flow from control of
the world’s second-largest oil reserves.

 

The transitional government of Iraq
is to be headed by a retired Army lieutenant general, Jay Garner. His career
path was typical. He moved effortlessly from his military career to the
presidency of SYColeman, a defense contractor that helped Israel develop its
Arrow missile-defense system. The iron web.

 

Those who dreamt of a flowering of
democracy in Iraq are advised to consider the skepticism of Brent Scowcroft, the
national security adviser to the first President Bush. He asked: “What’s going
to happen the first time we hold an election in Iraq and it turns out the
radicals win? What do you do? We’re surely not going to let them take
over.”


The Last Refuge – Paul Krugman

April 10, 2003 at 10:41 am
Contributed by:

Folks,


Krugman is still far and away the act to beat in political journalism. Here he addresses the new McCarthyism as it plays in election politics, and particularly the skirmish between Sen. John Kerry and Marc Racicot, chairman of the Republican National Committee.


The Last Refuge – Paul Krugman

–C

Dances With Wolfowitz

April 9, 2003 at 6:40 pm
Contributed by:



Folks,

Do we have something to
celebrate?
Or new wars to fight?

Both, from the sounds of what the
Administration is doing…

–C

—–Original Message—–
Good
article that appeared today in the NY Times.

Dances With Wolfowitz

By
MAUREEN
DOWD


WASHINGTON


There is an unforgettable scene in “Lawrence of Arabia” when an agonized
Lawrence resists as a British commander in Cairo presses him to return to the
desert to lead the Arabs revolting against the Ottoman Turks.


Lawrence: “I killed two people. One was yesterday. He was just a boy, and I
led him into quicksand. The other was . . . well . . . before Aqaba. I had to
execute him with my pistol, and there was something about it that I didn’t
like.”


General Allenby: “That’s to be expected.”


Lawrence: “No, something else.”


General Allenby: “Well, then let it be a lesson.”


Lawrence: “No . . . something else.”


General Allenby: “What then?”


Lawrence: “I enjoyed it.”


We were always going to win the war with Iraq. We were always going to get to
some triumphant moment, like the great one on Fox at 1:30 a.m. Eastern time on
Monday morning, when two G.I.’s from Georgia held up a University of Georgia
bulldog flag in front of Saddam’s presidential palace in Baghdad, and others
mischievously headed upstairs to try out Saddam’s gold fixtures in the master
bathroom.


The big question about the war was, How much blood could Americans bear?


Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney were determined to lead America out of its
post-Vietnam, post-Mogadishu queasiness with force and casualties, to change the
culture to accept war as a more natural part of a superpower’s role in the
world.


Their strategy might be described as Black Hawk Up.


Mr. Cheney’s war guru, Victor Davis Hanson, writes in his book “An Autumn of
War” that war can be good, and that sometimes nations are better off using
devastation than suasion. Mr. Hanson cites Sherman’s march through Georgia, the
19th century’s great instance of shock and awe, as a positive role model.


Polls and interviews show that in their goal of making Americans less rattled
by battle, Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Cheney have succeeded: most Americans are
showing a stoic attitude about the dead and the wounded so far.


(Perhaps the American tolerance for pain is owed to the fact that much of the
pain is not shown on television, embeddedness notwithstanding.)


Wolfowitz of Arabia and the other administration hawks are thrilled with U.S.
hawkishness. When Mr. Wolfowitz was on “Meet the Press” on Sunday his aides sat
in the green room watching the monitor and high-fiving their boss’s
performance.


As American forces made their first armored thrusts into Baghdad, visions of
a JDAM strike on Damascus danced in the hawks’ heads.


The former C.I.A. director James Woolsey, a Wolfie pal and a prospective
administrator in occupied Iraq, bluntly told U.C.L.A. students last week that to
reshape the Middle East, the U.S. would have to spend years and maybe decades
waging World War IV. (He counted the cold war as World War III.)


He identified America’s enemies as the Islamist Shia who run Iran, the
Iranian-supported Hezbollah, the fascist Baathists in Iraq and Syria, and the
Islamist Sunnis who run Al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist groups.


Mr. Wolfowitz, however, played the diplomat on Sunday, gliding past Tim
Russert’s probing on whether the neo-cons’ dreams of other campaigns in Syria,
Iran and North Korea would come true. Pressed, he said, “There’s got to be
change in Syria as well.”


And the Times’s David Sanger reported that when a Bush aide stepped into the
Oval Office recently to tell the president that the hard-boiled Rummy had also
been shaking a fist at Syria, Mr. Bush smiled and said one word: “Good.”


The administration already sounds as triumphalist as Lawrence at his
giddiest. Today’s satirical Onion headline reads: “Bush Subconsciously Sizes Up
Spain for Invasion.”


The success of this war should not leave us infatuated with war. Americans’
tolerance for these casualties should not be mistaken for a willingness to
absorb endless American sacrifice on endless battlefields.


Victory in Iraq will be a truly historic event, but it will be exceedingly
weird and dangerous if this administration turns America into Sparta.


There remains the unfinished business of Osama bin Laden. But the end of
Operation Iraqi Freedom should not mark the beginning of Operation Eternal War.
  



Timely quotes

April 9, 2003 at 6:22 pm
Contributed by:

Folks,

 

Having
collected a fair number of interesting quotes from hither and yon lately, I
thought I’d send some around.

 

May I
suggest that you start with these first, from the March issue of The Sun, my
longtime favorite magazine.
Sure, I’ll give them a plug, I’ve been a loyal
subscriber for about 15 years now.

http://www.thesunmagazine.org/327_Beams.pdf 
(Sorry, it’s a PDF file)

 


“You know the world is going crazy when
the best rapper is a white
guy,
the best golfer is a black guy,
the tallest guy in the NBA is
Chinese,
the Swiss hold the America’s Cup,
France is accusing the U.S. of
arrogance,
Germany doesn’t want to go to war,
and the three most powerful
men in America
are named ‘Bush’, ‘Dick’, and ‘Colon'”
– Chris
Rock



“To announce that there must be
no criticism of the president, or that we
are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the
American public.”
— Teddy Roosevelt


“I know two types of law because I know
two types of men, those who are with us
and those who are against us.” – Hermann Goering, 1936


“You are either with us or against us.”
– George W. Bush, November 2001


“Either you are with us, or you are
with the terrorists.” – George W. Bush,
September 2001


“If our nation is ever taken over, it
will be taken over from within.” -President James Madison


“There’s
a better form of security: reconnect with the rest of the world, don’t shut it
out; stop making enemies and start making friends. Perhaps it’s asking a lot to
expect America to act differently from all the other empires in history, but
wasn’t that the original idea?”
–Brian Eno


“An evil exists that threatens every
man, woman and child of this great nation, We must take steps to ensure our
domestic security and protect our homeland.” –Adoph Hitler, writing
about creation of the Gestapo in Nazi Germany.


“The world is a dangerous place to
live; not because of the people who are
evil, but because of the people who don’t
do anything about it.Albert
Einstein


“PATRIOTISM IS THE LAST REFUGE OF THE
SCOUNDREL” Samuel Johnson


“Just a 2.7-mpg gain in the fuel
economy of this country’s light-vehicle fleet could displace Persian Gulf
imports entirely” Amory B.
Lovins


Reasonable people adapt themselves to
the world. Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. All
progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people.–George Bernard Shaw


“When the rich wage war, it’s the poor
who die.”Jean-Paul Sartre


A hundred times every day I remind
myself that my inner and outer life
depends on the labors of other men, living and dead, and that I must exert myself in order to give
in the same measure as I have received and
am still receiving.Albert
Einstein


“Whoever undertakes to set himself up
as judge
       in the field of truth and
knowledge
            is
shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods.”
Einstein


“Think for yourselves and do not
uncritically accept what you are told, and
do what you can to make the world a better place, particularly for those
who suffer and are oppressed.”Noam Chomsky


A very famous quote, often attributed to Jefferson is:


    “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

Indeed, this is a sentiment that is consonant with Jefferson’s
writings, and there are several genuine quotes that are similar to it. But
Jefferson did not write it. Bartlett’s “Familiar Quotations” credits it to John
Philpot Curran, a contemporary of Jefferson. Bartlett’s says it is “commonly
quoted” as stated above. However, the original version is, in my opinion, much
more interesting:


    “It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become
    a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man
    is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the
    consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.”

Jefferson wrote the following, expressing approximately the same sentiments:


    “Lethargy [is] the forerunner of death to the public liberty.” –Thomas
    Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.

    “We, I hope, shall adhere to our republican government and keep it to its
    original principles by narrowly watching it.” –Thomas Jefferson to ——,
    March 18, 1793. ME 9:45

    “I do most anxiously wish to see the highest degrees of education given to
    the higher degrees of genius and to all degrees of it, so much as may enable
    them to read and understand what is going on in the world and to keep their
    part of it going on right; for nothing can keep it right but their own
    vigilant and distrustful superintendence.” –Thomas Jefferson to Mann Page,
    1795. ME 9:306


Thus, it is easy to see how the quote in question might be attributed to
Jefferson. (From http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7970/jefpco13.htm)


–C




Page 20 of 26« First...10...16171819202122232425...Last »


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