Sunday, February 05, 2006

Belafonte on Bush, War and Wiretaps

Democracy Now!. Posted February 4, 2006.


Renowned musician and activist Harry Belafonte speaks up about why Bush and Co. are the world's worst terrorists -- and what we can do about it.

harry_story

Editor’s Note: The following is an edited transcript from Amy Goodman's syndicated radio show Democracy Now!

Amy Goodman: The son of Caribbean-born immigrants, Harry Belafonte grew up on the streets of Harlem and Jamaica. After serving in World War II, he returned to New York and began a successful acting and singing career. Along with his rise to worldwide stardom, Belafonte became deeply involved in the Civil Rights Movement and was close friends with the Rev. Martin Luther King.

In the 1980's he helped initiate the "We Are the World" single which helped raise millions of dollars in aid to Africa. He also hosted former South African President Nelson Mandela on his triumphant visit to the United States. Belafonte has been a longtime critic of U.S. foreign policy, calling for an end to the embargo against Cuba, and opposing policies of war and global oppression.Belafonte spoke at a rally in Caracas, where he commented on President Bush:

"No matter what the greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world, George W. Bush, says, we're here to tell you: Not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of the American people -- millions -- support your revolution, support your ideas, and yes, expressing our solidarity with you."

Amy Goodman: Harry Belafonte was standing next to President Chavez when he made those comments, and he didn't let up…Harry Belafonte joins us today in our Firehouse studio for the hour. Welcome to Democracy Now!

Harry Belafonte: It's nice to be here.

Amy Goodman: It's good to have you with us. Well, let's go back for a moment to Venezuela and your comments there, for which you got a lot of attention in the United States. Talk about your views of President Bush.

Harry Belafonte: When Katrina took place, there was a great sense of tragic loss for many Americans who saw that terrible tragedy. What we had not anticipated was that our government would have been so negligent and so unresponsive to the plight of hundreds of thousands of people in the region.

And in a dilemma that we all face as to what we could do as private citizens to help the folks that were caught in that tragedy, we began to listen to voices that were outside the boundaries of government, the United States government. We listened to voices that came from as far away as Denmark, who offered to send goods and services in emergency, and we also heard the voices of people from Venezuela through their leader, Hugo Chavez, who said that 'In this moment of your great tragedy, we, the Venezuelan people, extend all the resources we can summon up to help the plight of those people caught in the Gulf region.

The United States very abruptly and very arrogantly rejected that offer, while in its stead, we did nothing to bring immediate relief. And as a matter of fact, I must tell you, we're still quite delinquent in what the peoples of that region need, because we still failed to fully mobilize and meet the needs of the people, particularly in New Orleans, but other places within that region.

I and many other private citizens decided that we would listen very carefully to what people outside of the government were saying, because there was no immediate sense of relief and response to what we were experiencing, the people in Katrina. And so, like others, I went with a delegation of 15 people, at the invitation of the Venezuelan government, to come and to meet with President Chavez and members of his cabinet to talk about what we could do to help American people caught in this tragedy.

While there, we were given the right and the permission and the opportunity to visit barrios, villages, going into the schools, going into the prisons of Venezuela. We went into the academic institutions, in which Cornel West spoke. Tavis Smiley went to TeleSUR and other television communications development taking place, to examine, to see what was happening to, quote-unquote, "freedom of the press."

As we've said, freedom of the press in Venezuela is vigorously denied. There is no opposition noise. Yet it's interesting to note that nothing in Venezuela has been nationalized. There's still a very vigorous private sector, albeit that it's a little disgruntled that it is not able to sustain the rather one-sided agreement that they drew with that government a long time ago in contracts that were drawn for oil and other resources.

Amy Goodman: Did you meet with the opposition as well?

Harry Belafonte: Yes. We met with the opposition, as a matter of fact, the leader of the opposition. And for a little over two hours, we had an exchange. I asked him questions that I thought were appropriate about what he felt about Chavez and the program, why did he take an opposition position. And he expressed his thoughts on the way things were going. We found that there were some contradictions to what he said, but that was not my purpose.

I didn't go down to be an investigative reporter. I went down to ascertain facts and to make sure that if we got responses from the Venezuelan government that would help the plight of poor people in America, not just those caught in Katrina, but, as you well know, already the South Bronx has received aid, oil at very favorable prices for people who were not given any to be able to face this winter that we're experiencing now, and it is expected that will become more severe. Massachusetts received oil. They just recently negotiated with Vermont and Maine and other places, about not only oil, but what other goods and services can the Venezuelan government bring to take up the slack for what the United States says it has no resources to fill.

It is quite curious that we can find billions and billions of dollars to sustain an illegal and immoral war in the Middle East, invading a country that did not provoke us and moving into this conflict unconstitutionally, even though it had the approval of the Congress. Even the Congress violated the statutes of the Constitution.

We were not invaded. There was no threat of an enemy. We unilaterally walked into a country that had no threat to this country, and we invaded it. That's against the Constitution.

Amy Goodman: You call President Bush a terrorist?

Harry Belafonte: I call President Bush a terrorist. I call those around him terrorists, as well: Condoleeza Rice, Rumsfeld, Gonzales in the Justice Department, and certainly Cheney. I think all of these men sit -- and women -- sit in the midst of an enormous conspiracy that has been unraveling America for the last six years. It is tragic that the dubious way in which this president acquired power should have begun to unravel the Constitution and the peoples of this country.

Yes, I say that there are people in this country who live in terror. Poverty is terror. Having your Social Security threatened is terror. Having your livelihood as an elderly person slowly disappearing with no replenishment is terror. Students who are dropping out of school because there are no resources to keep us in school is terror.

You find people in the streets, watching drugs permeate our communities and destroy our young, it's a life of terror. And men who sit in charge of that distribution mechanism, which can help the American people overcome these problems and refuse to do so, while giving the rich more money than they've ever dreamt of having, while turning around our institutions and redirecting resources from those who are truly in need to those who are already generously endowed, if not hedonistically so, it's a great tragedy.

And I think most important is that we have words that attempt to give us moral cleansing, so that somehow we hold those responsible for crashing into the Twin Towers and killing over 2,000 Americans citizens in cold blood, which is an act of terrorism -- people who have done that should be sought out and brought to justice; there's no question of that -- but when we do what we have done, illegal war, going into the Middle East, bombing at will, and then hundreds of thousands of people get caught, who are either maimed or over 100,000 have already been killed, who are innocent men, women and children, and we chalk that off to a thing called "collateral damage," as if somehow that murderous thing that we're doing so cruelly and so inhumanely has no judgment before world opinion, that we are somehow righteous and above criticism and above the law. That is unacceptable. And that's what I speak out against.

Amy Goodman: I wanted to ask you about the comments you made about former Secretary of State Colin Powell. This is what you said about him during a radio interview in Los Angeles in October 2002:

There's an old saying in the days of slavery, there are those slaves who lived on the plantation, and there were those slaves who lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master to exactly the way the master intended to have you serve him. That gave you privilege. Colin Powell is permitted to come into the house of the master, as long as he will serve the master according to the master's dictates. Now, when Colin Powell dares to suggest something other than what the master wants to hear, he will be turned back out to pasture.

Amy Goodman: Your thoughts today about Colin Powell?

Harry Belafonte: I think I'm mostly saddened by the fact that now that Colin Powell is no longer in office and enjoys the privileges of private citizenship, that even in this aftermath, he is still not repentant. And I'm not asking him to repent in some supercilious commanding way. What I'm looking at is his soul, and I'm looking at redemption from past grievances and transgressions.

He lied to the American people, as did his president, before the United Nations. That led us into this war. We were told about weapons of mass destruction -- there aren't any -- and all the things that you and I'm sure your listeners already know. And I would imagine that now that he's been removed from that responsibility, that he would have taken a position that maybe would have said to us more clearly and more humanely what his difficulties and problems were while he was in service and that he now choose to look at all of this from another perspective, especially in the wake of all that has been revealed by intelligence reports that have been released, by the debate that we've been having on what happened and how we did it, and what all the subterfuges were and what has come out from the intelligence communities in other nations around the world. But no, there has not been such -- he still maintains that what he did was just and correct.

I find that sad. I mean, I remember John Kennedy, when he went into Cuba and understood very quickly how ill-advised that was, that he had the courage and the strength to say, I made a mistake, and that I'm sorry that I listened to counsel that misled me, and that I accept all responsibility for this act, and that I will not do that again. And he apologized not only to the American people, but to the world at large, and stepped forward. For that, he was greatly admired.

I don't think that we are a species or a people that can exist without making mistakes somewhere along the line. Some make mistakes that are greater than others. But I do believe that we should have the courage and the ability to look at something that we did, even if in the first instance we believed it, when in the wake of the aftermath and the truth, you find out that that was not the case, to then say, 'Let me go back and examine what led me to this conclusion. What gods was I serving? What masters was I serving? What was it all about?' and then try to be more instructive to people who will listen to you.

Amy Goodman: I wanted to ask you about the surveillance scandal; President Bush wiretapping Americans without court warrant. This isn't the first time, of course, and you were a victim of it. Can you, in talking about that, also talk about your relationship with Dr. Martin Luther King, how you met, the conversations you had, and then recently learning about these wiretaps?

Harry Belafonte: When I was discharged from the United States Navy, having served almost two years during the Second World War, I came back, like millions of us did, with an expectation that those principles for which we fought would be fully revealed and embraced by the American government and the American people -- the war was about democracy, the war was about ending white supremacy, the war was about ending colonialism -- only to discover that the Allies, the British, the French, the Dutch and the Americans, all who were the forefront of the democratic charge, having victoriously won that war, did not upon the celebration of victory do anything but go back to business as usual.

Segregation was more vigorously enforced in this country. Many citizens in this country did not have the right to vote. Opportunities were not on an equal level playing field. The peoples of Asia and Africa and the colonial Caribbean were not experiencing any relief from their colonial degradation. And many of us were very, very upset and very angry with the fact that here was democracy, having been fought for so vigorously, not reaching out to those of us who were the victims of the absence of democracy. And in that context, rather than submit, we joined and organized and did everything we could to have the principles of democracy in our Constitution upheld. That meant we went after voting, we went after ending the segregation laws. We did everything.

For that act, we were looked upon as unpatriotic, we were looked upon as people who were insurgents, that we were doing things to betray our nation and the tranquility of our citizens, when nothing could have been further from the truth. That engaged the F.B.I. That engaged the House on American Activities Committee. Many of our leaders were hounded and denied their livelihood. Their passports were taken away. So vigorous was that campaign of oppression that even American citizens committed suicide, and not by ones or twos, but by large numbers. It was a cruel, oppressive period. But we stayed the course, many of us. We resisted. And ultimately, we prevailed.

On the threshold of that experience came the Civil Rights Movement. As a matter of fact, we were the forerunners to the movement. We energized the spirit and people to make America live up to its code, live up to its great promise. In that context, the Civil Rights Movement began to do the same things that those before the movement did to vigorously pursue the unjust laws of this country and to turn them over.

J. Edgar Hoover and others in government began to put surveillance on the citizens. I have no idea how many court permissions were given to have our wires tapped, but nevertheless, we were. Everything we talked about were tapped. As a matter of fact, as an artist, while I was away, the innocence of my family and my children were invaded one evening by the F.B.I. agents who came while I was away, knocked at the door. My wife was very startled at the experience, and when she queried them as to why they were there, they said they had come to investigate me, because they felt that I was doing acts of treason towards our country.

Amy Goodman: When was this?

Harry Belafonte: This was 1950, '51, '52, around that period. Although we suspected that we were being surveilled, we didn't know the extent of it until reports began to be revealed and came out in a number of books that were written.

Perhaps the most detailed and one of the best-researched was a writer by the name of Taylor Branch, who did a trilogy called Parting the Waters and then Pillar of Fire, and the most recent, Canaan's Edge. In Canaan's Edge, much of his research was drawn from wiretaps, from surveillances, from conversations taped in the White House and the Justice Department and through the F.B.I.

These revelations should say to the American people: such a mechanism has been in place for a very, very long time. The essential difference between then and now, in the face of the same horror, is that no previous regime tried to subvert the Constitution. They may have done illegal acts. They may have gone outside the law to do these, but they did them clandestinely. No one stepped to the table as arrogantly as George W. Bush and his friends have done and said, 'We legally want to suspend the rights of citizens, the right to surveil, the right to read your mail, the right to arrest you without charge. You do not have the right to counsel if we so decide, and you can stay in prison as long as we want you to, until we're satisfied that we have reached the objectives that we want, despite the Constitution.'

I think that every person in the United States of America should be up in arms, should be up in rebellion against the reality that we face, that it is that fact that made me say that I think and I feel that we are at the dawnings of a new Gestapo state here in the United States, through the security -- Securities Commission and through the Homeland Security, as well -- National Security Agency.

All of these different agencies, all of these different bureaucracies have their own special assignments, and then they come -- and when you look at the collective, America is playing out a horror theme. The fact that we're a joyous nation, when you see sports and you see so much light, frothy, mindless entertainment bombarding you every day and so much disinformation coming your way, is enough to make any citizen mentally, as well as socially, blurred to truth.

But the fact is that it exists, and it exists very intensely in our midst. There are citizens at this moment who are being arrested, who are not being told why they're arrested. Some have been spirited out of this country to faraway places to be imprisoned and tortured. These are realities, and the American people had best wake up, because as one priest once said, or I think it was a protestant minister in Germany, said, 'When they came for the communists, I didn't know any. When they came for the Jews, I didn't know any. When they came for the labor movements, I didn't know any. And then when they came for me, no one was left.' I don't think we can distance ourselves from what's going on in America.

And as Roosevelt said, that 'When our government is being subverted, our Constitution is being undermined by those who sit in the seat of government and power, it is the right of citizens and the responsibility of citizens to raise their voice against this intrusion and this collapse and should speak out against it and, in fact, change the government; and those who do not do that, should be charged with patriotic treason.'

Amy Goodman: How do you think people should do that?

Harry Belafonte: By organizing, by coming together, by meeting, and if those sources of information that come your way blur, and all have the same voice, it's very easy to find Democracy Now! It's very easy to go to the internet. It's very easy to go to local meetings that are being held all over this country, on university campuses, in communities. I work very vigorously with groups in California, in South Central, up in Northern California. I go into the prisons of America. This nation is humming with people who are in discussion about what's happening to us.

Amy Goodman: Can you talk to people who are afraid of being blacklisted or whitelisted, if you will, from your own experience? I mean, here you were. the Calypso King. You were the first one to sell a million albums, way ahead of Frank Sinatra, all of them, but you were willing to risk it all. What did it mean to be blacklisted in this country?

Harry Belafonte: Actually, upon hindsight, it meant that I was doing something right, and regardless of any doubts that I may have had in the beginning, in wondering where this was all going, I've come to find that men like Paul Robeson and women like Eleanor Roosevelt and Fannie Lou Hamer and Ella Baker and so many noble warriors that were in the Civil Rights Movement, also those noble people in Africa, many who waged a vigorous resistance to colonialism, foremost would be Nelson Mandela, when our correspondence started while he was in prison and then ultimately to see the A.N.C. come about and bring a transition to a rather oppressive experience, one of the most in that century, and to do so nonviolently, to transform this government without firing one shot, all of these people stand as torches to my -- to the validation of what it was that we did, as the principle, as the clear voice of what people have to do. And I would say to my colleagues, 'If it is the economics of your life, when will you have enough? And at what price do you sell your soul when you know what the truth is and refuse to embrace it at the price of losing our democracy?'

Amy Goodman: When you say you started writing to Nelson Mandela when he was imprisoned -- for almost three decades -- where was this country? And how dangerous was this to do it?

Harry Belafonte: Writing to Nelson Mandela, as such, was not an act that endangered me, I don't think. It was certainly an act that was very much in tandem with the way I was behaving with a lot of people in the world who were having their human rights violated. I had done quite a lot of work in Africa. I was a cultural advisor to the Peace Corps, appointed by John Kennedy. I helped shape some of the early policies and how the Corps did its business in faraway countries. And long before most of the African countries had come to independence, I was there, talking to potential heads of state. I went to Kenya with Thurgood Marshall at the celebration of their independence, the only American artist or global artist to be so invited. And I worked with Tom Mboya before Kenya got its independence to bring African students to this country by the hundreds, along with Jackie Robinson and others who foot the bill.

We did a lot of work in Africa. I knew Julius Nyerere and Kenneth Kaunda, and then eventually Seku Ture, and had a long relationship to the continent. And so, therefore, writing Nelson Mandela would not have been an unusual thing for me to do, except that we knew he was incarcerated, charged with being a terrorist and all those things that we charged him with. And then I thought that in prison he should be at least -- we should make an attempt to reach him and to help with his spirits. My letters were delivered through his attorney, because all of his mail was read, and some of the letters got to him in a clandestine way.

I don't think any of us expected to see him alive. And at the end of 27 and a half years, because I continued to work with the A.N.C., I had continued to work with the issues of apartheid and the sanctions, I had brought to this country great African artists, Miriam Makeba, Hugh Masekela, who were hugely successful, and they delighted American audiences. And those artists spoke to the plight of the South Africans. And behind their calling, behind their power, and in the midst of my own, we did a lot to put the light on the darkness of what was going on in South Africa. And when Nelson Mandela was finally released from prison, the A.N.C. asked me to come to London to meet with Oliver Tambo, because they wanted me to personally handle all of his events when he came to the country, to help pick his agenda, what were the best targets, who were the people that he should most reach out to.

Amy Goodman: And this was Nelson Mandela?

Harry Belafonte: This was Nelson Mandela. And all the events were looked at. We negotiated -- we discussed clearly where we thought he should be. George Bush's father, the original President Bush, was in office then. I had to meet with his special services, securities, to talk about Nelson Mandela's safety in the country. David Dinkins was the mayor. I had to negotiate with him in the city -- a host of things that were done, in order to be able to secure his presence in this country and to let his voice be heard. So that was not unusual for me.

I had talked with other heads of state, Michael Manley from Jamaica, a place in which I grew up, where my roots stood. I worked very hard with Michael Manley for the Caribbean nations in the region, and I spent a great deal of time there, working socially and politically. So that's an open page. There was nothing clandestine about it. It's hard to be a superstar and hidden.

Amy Goodman: But early on, you were taking on corporate America and the U.S. government by supporting the A.N.C.

Harry Belafonte: Yes. I still take on corporate America and the U.S. government.

Amy Goodman: What about in Haiti? President Aristide is now in South Africa, ousted from Haiti. In February 29, 2004, he was taken out of the country in a U.S. plane, out of his own country, sent to the Central African Republic. And he said, he was the victim of a kidnapping in the service of a coup d'etat backed by the United States. Your response?

Harry Belafonte: My response is that I believe his story to be so. I believe that is exactly what happened. I've talked to many people who have far more information than I do, because I don't live within the womb of government, but those who do have attested to the fact that what took place historically, that we described as an undermining of a legitimate democracy, was the case. And as a matter of fact, I think the story that you alluded to at the beginning of this broadcast in the New York Times does not say that fully. But it certainly has taken a big slice of that period to show America's complicity in helping to undermine that government and destabilize that beleaguered country.

That's not unusual for us. We've done that with many places. While we talk about having democracy for the world, we undermine the democracy of Chile, where we murdered and participated fully in the murder of Allende. We have now talked about another legally existing president in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. We sought to do everything to diminish and demonize that president. We're speaking about other democracies in the region. It is not unusual for us to be duplicitous when it comes to talk.

We admit and accept democracies according to how we think they serve our most selfish and our most arrogant and our most oppressive needs. That's what we do, especially in the developing world. We stepped in while Vietnam was trying to iron out its own internal policies and were very close to having a victory there, when the United States intervened and lied once again to the American people, led us to a war that cost millions of lives, and all the things that we know about Vietnam.

It's not an unusual thing for us to do. And I think that citizens just have to understand that the first order of business for a democracy is vigilance among the citizens. It is a delicate instrument. It continues to need nourishment and attention. And the minute we turn away from that nourishment and that attention, it will be taken away from us, as it is now appearing to be the case.

Amy Goodman: You knew Paul Robeson?

Harry Belafonte: Yes, very well.

Amy Goodman: Paul Robeson, who the government pulled his passport. The government went after him. White-listed from almost every public space in this country. Have you been concerned in the past, and especially if young people are listening, as you were deeply concerned also about your career, that they could go after you in the same way? And what did Paul Robeson say about this?

Harry Belafonte: Paul Robeson was very clear. He felt he did

what he had to do, in conscience and in the spirit of this nation. And he made a choice. He has never imposed that choice on others. He knows that it is a very, very difficult thing to do, especially if you're from the poor. Especially if you're in the black community, coming from a line of never having to a moment where you have access, and all of a sudden to put that access in jeopardy. And I think that I would not put upon people some harsh judgment if they found that they were living in a zone of fear and had to move cautiously, as to what they would do to try to speak out against that oppression. But I suspect that if it is not attended to in the earliest, it may have to be attended to in the latest. And in the latest, you may find that it's too late.

Amy Goodman: You also knew Rosa Parks.

Harry Belafonte: Yes, I knew her.

Amy Goodman: What about her legacy? One of the things the corporate media said when she died, though they did pay a lot of attention, they made the point that she was no troublemaker. But it looks like her history shows the very opposite. She was a troublemaker from way back, committing her life to equality, against segregation.

Harry Belafonte: She never stopped being a troublemaker. But it is now to this country's best interest, in order to further hide its villainy, to reach out and to somehow blur those who were very revolutionary and those who, in the end, turned out to be huge moral, as well as social, forces in our time, to lay claim to them, because it helps hide who they are and what they do. Cheney, I mean, he didn't want Dr. King to be a holiday. He worked vigorously against the levels of acceptability that he has reached in the United States government. I mean, our government is replete with people who now lay claim to Dr. King and honor him.

Well, let me say this, as one who was instructed by Dr. King to seek and to encourage redemption, I'm glad that at this late date in life they somehow celebrate it. But I don't think they celebrate it in honor. They celebrate it to subvert what it is that they do, by having people believe that they embrace the principles of a woman like Rosa Parks and people like Fannie Lou Hamer, one of the most courageous of all.

Amy Goodman: Kanye West, after Hurricane Katrina, said President Bush doesn't like black people. Do you agree?

Harry Belafonte: I do not know that I could look upon President Bush as someone who actively works every day of his life to oppress and to kill black people as a direct act of race. I think his insensitivity, in the class frame, being who he is, coming from the privileges that he does, being one who pursues the edge of imperial ambition -- not so much the edge, he's right smack in the center of it -- he can be expected to do those things, which will cruelly administer no relief at all to those who are oppressed, who are poor. And in that act, because of the way in which our society is structured, a large group of brown people, a large group of yellow people, a large group of black people, are on the forefront of this nation's poverty. And therefore, we feel the brunt of it.

One cannot help but wonder that if what happened in Katrina in that region of America had happened somewhere in Maine or had happened somewhere else in America where white sensibilities and white life would have been in great jeopardy, that our nation would have been that blurred, and certainly our government, to what was happening to the citizens who are not white.

I think somewhere in the American psyche, black people are expendable when we try to sustain our positions of privilege and our positions of power, just as I think people in the Middle East are expendable.

I don't think America really knows who we are. We don't know our fellow citizens. We don't know the nations we invade. We don't have a real deep and honest sense of who we are as a people, both on the good side of the ledger, to who we are as a people that comes from the dark side of the ledger. We are the most uninformed people on the face of the earth. And I don't say that as hyperbole.

Amy Goodman: Do you think Americans should join the military, and do you think soldiers should go to Iraq?

Harry Belafonte: I don't think soldiers should be anywhere in the world. I mean, that is a moral and a basic philosophy. I think that the only way to end wars is to have no military and to find other ways in which -- I think we should suspend all nuclear weapons. Do I think we can do that as an act that is instantaneous? No. I think too much of the world is locked in to what the military stabilizes in civilized society. So I think there is a process. But if that is the goal and the aim, and it is so declared, then I think citizens should participate in the prospect of disengagement.

Let me just say this. If you have a patient who is hit by a disease, and doctors look and say, 'To go in, it will be a shock to the body to move that, without looking at what it does to other parts of the body; let us move to prepare the body for the moment of great relief,' then that's what we pursue. I think the same thing exists in a civil society and in the political process. We have to be careful. But I think that we should have as our goal to end military intrusion as a way to settle grievances.

Amy Goodman: Would you counsel soldiers not to serve in Iraq?

Harry Belafonte: If I were a soldier today or going into the military today, as an act of conscience, I would not serve. I volunteered to be in the United States Navy during the Second World War as an act of conscience, not just because it gave me relief from poverty and I had a place to go to maybe learn a skill, because I wasn't learning anywhere I lived and had opportunity where I was living, but because I really believed in the principles of what we fought for and what we said we were doing in making the world safe.

So I think it's an act of conscience and an act of social responsibility to say yes, as tens of thousands of young people do. We just don't hear about them. I think we're having trouble recruiting young people, because they're not readily volunteering because they have conflict about what this war means and what our government is asking them to do.

Amy Goodman: What gives you hope?

Harry Belafonte: People. I cannot believe that which we have achieved in this country, nothing could have been darker than the time of slavery. We extricated ourselves from that. Nothing could be darker than a century of apartheid and oppression. We extricated ourselves from that. The Second World War was not winnable by the onslaught of the German forces. We won that. I think in the final analysis, the people are the true frontier, and I think people will save this nation. But it is only people who can do it.

Comments Give Us Feedback »
Tools: [Post a new comment] [Login] [Signup] View:
Mr. Belafonte
Posted by: bullwinkle6969 on Feb 4, 2006 3:09 AM [Report this comment]
Thanks Mr. Belafonte for all the efforts you have made in your lifetime on behalf of this country and others.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »]

I'm Just Wild About Belafonte!
Posted by: Tom Degan on Feb 4, 2006 3:45 AM [Report this comment]
The "Powers" (read: muderous thugs) that be are now on a campaign to depict Harry Belafonte as being mentally unsound. When he points out the undeniable fact that George W. Bush is the biggest source of world instability since Adolf Hitler and Joeseph Stalin, the right-wing robots of radio go into instant atatck mode. In addition to his sanity, they question his patriotism. That has always been a favorite ploy of these freaks: Attack the true patriot's patriotism. As Don Imus would say, "You just can't make this stuff up"!

It makes me smile to know that he's still Harry after all these years. The man is still out there, still holding up a mirror to a sick and hypocritcal society that obviously doesn't like what's reflected. Daylight come but he ain't going home, baby!

In all of history, one could hold in the palm of one's hands entertainers of substance; People like Chaplin, Lennon, Bono and Lenny Bruce who were really trying to make a difference and change the world. Harry Belafonte is one of the select few, no question about it.

If you will permit me to go slightly off-subject just for a moment - Go out and purchase the CD: Belafonte At Carnegie Hall. Recorded in April of 1959, it is the best live album ever made.

Pray for peace

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
tomdegan@frontiernet.net

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »]

Thank You
Posted by: navistic50 on Feb 4, 2006 3:46 AM [Report this comment]
Mr. Belafonte, there are many of us "regular citizens" who believe in the words you speak. Although this is one of the most darkest times in our history, I am hopeful that the "people" will realize the need to confront and bring to justice, the corrupt in our country and take off the blinders to see a better future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »]

Harry Belafonte, one of the greatest Americans ever to grace our nation
Posted by: jolo on Feb 4, 2006 3:55 AM [Report this comment]
If you are not familiar with a man whp possibly is the "greatest" living American, you need to look at the entire history of Mr. Belafonte's life. A man totally dedicated to unifying the world, being an activist, bringing out the great cultures and dignity of the people of the world.
Mr. Belafonte's accomplishments are absolutely amazing, and the amount of "firsts" he has participated in is staggering.
I don't know of any man who has lived a life who has consistently been driven by his love of the people of the world, his ethics, morality, humility, dignity and absolutely unrelenting with his energy and work. I believe his about 78 years old and is still very active in Unicef, traveling all of the time and sleflessly help those of the world.
Just quickly some amazing facts:

1. Harry Belafonte's album Calypso, a album of carribian folk songs was thye VERY FIRST ALBUM TO EVER SELL 1 MILLION COPIES !! That album and those famous live performances just absolutley destroyed any limits for Black entertainers being expected by White audiences.

2. Bob Dylan's first time recorded was when Mr. Belafonte hired him to play harmonica for him on an album of folk songs.

3. Mr. Belafonte was one of the artists Blackballed during the McCarthy hearings.

4. It really wasn't that long ago when Mr. Belafonte had a TV special with Petula Clark in which there was a romantic song that they song together and ended in the first TV kiss of a Black man with a White woman.

5, Before Martin Luther King became a public figure, Harry and Mr. King became friends and worked and marched together.

6. Mr Belafonte was the first Black Man to win an emmy award in 1959 for his special that he Produced and Stared in "Tonight with Belafonte" Mr. Belafonte was the first Black Producer on Television.

7. Mr. Belafonte won a Tony award way back in 1953 .

8. When the Peace Corp was created, President John F. Kennedy name Harry Belafonte to the post of cultural advisor to the Peace Corps. Mr. Belafonte served Kennedy, the world and the United States by traveling all over the world in that post.

So much more, but Mr. Belafonte, bless you and "Keep on Rockin".

Great and brave comments by a one of America's and the World's greatest citizens, talents and humanitarians.

Jon

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »]


Belafonte Practiced What He Preached
Posted by: Stonecutter on Feb 4, 2006 6:10 AM [Report this comment]
I saw this quote from Michael Rivero ("whatreallyhappened.com") in a comment a few days ago..."“Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges the government under which he lives is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it.

To take action in the face of corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one’s self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice.

Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker, but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all.”

Harry Belafonte is a hero more for his lifelong action than for his eloquent and inspiring words. Much of this interview focuses on his courage in puttting himself--and by assocation, his loved ones--in harm's way as he pursued his own vision of a just and fair America and world. He had Dr. MLK to inspire hiim, and we have Harry to inspire us, but it's the action we each have to find and take, and sustain...just admiring the words simply doesn't cut it. Without action, the words will not save us, or this country. To take action means we have to locate that courage and focus it like a laser beam on an issue or policy we want to help change, and then go for it. This is Harry's example to each of us, and why he is one of those extraordinary human beings.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »]

Friday, February 03, 2006

Tomgram: De la Vega on Why Rove Will Fall

The President passed through his State of the Union address -- ill-digested chunks of so many other speeches he's given ("We're writing a new chapter in the story of self-government -- with women lining up to vote in Afghanistan, and millions of Iraqis marking their liberty with purple ink…) -- largely untouched by the media. His two Supreme Court-changing appointments, Roberts and Alito, were triumphantly in the front row of the audience. Undoubtedly, it wasn't a bad way for a besieged President to start year two of term two. Okay, maybe in distant Baghdad -- "We're on the offensive in Iraq, with a clear plan for victory" -- things were actually looking a little peaked and, admittedly, the Bush wave of freedom in the Middle East had just swept Islamic fundamentalists into control of the Palestinian Authority, but all in all the President had reason to feel at least some satisfaction. And yet there lurks a presidential problem of administration-staggering proportions that few are even thinking about at the moment.

Quietly, largely below the radar screen, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald continues to work on the CIA leak case in which the administration decided to punish ex-ambassador Joseph Wilson for embarrassing them on Saddam's nonexistent search for yellowcake uranium by outing his wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA agent. News on the case has been sparse indeed of late. I. Lewis ("Scooter") Libby, indicted former chief of staff for Vice President Cheney, crept back into the papers this week on a fishing expedition for CIA documents; while a single, shades-of-Watergate sentence in a brief report by James Gordon Meek in the New York Daily News indicated that "Fitzgerald… said in a letter to Libby's lawyers that many e-mails from Cheney's office at the time of the Plame leak in 2003 have been deleted contrary to White House policy." (The letter can be found at the Raw Story website.) Meanwhile, not so long ago in an investigative report at the Truthout website, the fine Internet reporter Jason Leopold indicated that Fitzgerald "has been questioning witnesses in the CIA leak case about the origins of the disputed Niger documents referenced in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address."

Still, the case, having largely disappeared into the media void, has something of the look of yet another danger dodged by an administration with at least nine lives. Well, don't let the relative silence surrounding Fitzgerald fool you. As former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega indicates below, the Special Counsel is working on another time schedule than that of administration officials. So, in due course, expect fireworks out of his office that will first illuminate the role of Karl Rove in the case and then may well light up a far wider stretch of the horizon. Tom

When Two Worlds Collide

Rove v. Fitzgerald
By Elizabeth de la Vega

For Karl Rove, no news from the Plame case -- Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury investigation into the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson's identity as a CIA agent -- is definitely not good news. Seismic activity is notoriously silent, so we may not be hearing any rumblings at the moment. But speaking as a former prosecutor, I believe it highly likely that, just below the surface, the worlds of Karl Rove and Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, shifting like tectonic plates, are about to collide. As was true with Vice President Cheney's top aide, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, charged with obstruction of justice and lying to a federal agent as well as to the grand jury, Rove might not be charged with the leak itself. I am confident, however, that Rove will not leave this party empty-handed. He will, at the very least, almost certainly be charged with making false statements to an FBI agent. Here's why.

For starters, the evidence that Rove deliberately lied to the FBI is overwhelming.

In case anyone's forgotten, on July 14, 2003, in an op-ed in the New York Times, eight days after former Ambassador Joseph Wilson publicly questioned Bush's claim that Iraq had tried to acquire "yellowcake" uranium in Africa, columnist Robert Novak wrote that "two senior administration officials" had told him the trip to Niger, which Wilson referenced in that piece, had been arranged by his wife Valerie, whom the officials described as a CIA operative assigned to investigate matters involving weapons of mass destruction.

It is now undisputed that Karl Rove spoke with at least two reporters about Valerie Wilson before Novak's now infamous article appeared: Novak himself (whom Rove has known for 30 years) and Time magazine's Matthew Cooper. Some details of the discussion with Cooper are in dispute, but there's no question that the two men discussed Valerie Wilson's identity as a CIA agent and the administration's claim that she had arranged her husband's trip to Niger. After the conversation, Rove sent an e-mail about it to then Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. Rove's aide Susan Ralston has reportedly testified that Rove told her not to log in the phone call, although that was the usual office procedure. On July 17, Cooper wrote an article in which he described conversations with two government officials who claimed Wilson's wife was a CIA agent and had arranged Wilson's trip to Africa. Cooper questioned whether the administration was declaring war on Wilson.

Between July 14 and October 8, when Rove was interviewed by the FBI, the Bush administration held approximately 30 press briefings in which the leak and/or the Iraq-Niger uranium allegations were discussed. There were hundreds of news articles and repeated calls for an investigation by congressmen, columnists, and the CIA.

By mid-September, Karl Rove was increasingly being named as one of the "two senior administration officials" who blew Wilson's cover and Bush's press officer Scott McClellan was facing ever more insistent questions about Rove's involvement. On September 16, McClellan said that "it was ridiculous" to suggest Rove was the leaker. On the morning of September 29, McClellan announced that "the President knows Rove is not involved." From that date to October 8, when Rove was interviewed, Bush and McClellan were specifically questioned about Rove's possible role on ten separate occasions. On October 7, Rove and other White House staffers were required to provide investigators with all documents relating to any contacts they had had with reporters about Joseph Wilson, his trip to Niger, or his wife, Valerie Wilson.

As has now been widely reported, when Karl Rove spoke to FBI agents, he specifically told them that he had not spoken to any reporters about Joseph Wilson's wife before Novak's article appeared.

Given the almost seamless press coverage of the leak during the preceding three months, the time and effort that the White House was devoting to the issue, as well as the intensifying focus on whether he himself had leaked the information, it is impossible to believe that, on October 8, Karl Rove -- known for his brilliance, attention to detail, and legendary memory -- did not remember those two conversations with reporters about Valerie Wilson. If Rove told the FBI agents otherwise, it was surely a deliberate lie.

According to reports, Rove then added that he had first heard about Valerie Wilson from a reporter, though he did not remember which reporter or when he heard it. He also said that he had enlisted the aid of the Republican National Committee and conservative news agencies among other groups to spread disparaging information about Joseph Wilson and his wife, but only after Novak's article appeared.

Rove's elaboration not only compounded his initial lie but also illuminated the world of politics that he has been incapable of leaving behind -- a world that collides head-on with the one Patrick Fitzgerald inhabits, where politics have no place and where laws, and the highest standards of public service, prevail.

Despite his measured words, Fitzgerald revealed much about his worldview in the press conference in which he announced Libby's indictment. He said that the investigation was serious because the disclosure of classified information about a CIA officer could jeopardize national security. But equally serious -- and he repeated this more than once -- was the betrayal of government employees by their own officials. Anyone who has worked as a federal prosecutor for two decades, as has Fitzgerald, has also worked closely, often late and long hours, with law enforcement agents, so it is not surprising perhaps that when asked about the damage caused by the leak, Fitzgerald offered the following:

"I can say that for the people who work at the CIA and work at other places, they have to expect that when they do their jobs that classified information will be protected. And they have to expect that when they do their job, that information about whether or not they are affiliated with the CIA will be protected. And they run a risk when they work for the CIA that something bad could happen to them, but they have to make sure that they don't run the risk that something bad is going to happen to them from something done by their own fellow employees."

Over and over again, in that same press conference, Fitzgerald demonstrated his belief that if you sign onto a system that has certain rules, you have to follow those rules even if it might be personally advantageous to break them. Those who tuned in saw reporters repeatedly ask him about information he could not reveal without violating the rules of grand jury secrecy or prosecutorial ethics. He was asked, for example, whether other people might be charged. He declined to answer. He was asked to evaluate the strength of the case. He declined to answer. He acknowledged how frustrating his inability to answer undoubtedly was to the assembled media, but explained that he couldn't gather information according to the rules of grand jury secrecy -- which prohibit talking about people who were investigated but not charged with a crime -- and then afterwards reveal the information anyway because it was too "inconvenient" not to answer reporters' questions

Later in the press conference, he said simply, "All I can do is make sure that myself and our team follow the rules."

Fitzgerald's world is far removed from the world of expediency and personal advantage in which Karl Rove operates. In his carefully crafted statements during the FBI interview on October 8, Rove indicated an obvious belief that he could get away with spreading information about government employees for political purposes as long as someone else had revealed that information first, regardless of whether or not the information was disparaging or classified. He did not appear to be concerned with where the information came from, or even whether it was true.

Although it is astounding that Rove would blatantly describe such a despicable ethos (if you can call it that), it should not have been unexpected. In the world of campaign politics that Rove has so long inhabited, smears and personal attacks are designed to seem as if they were spontaneously generated. They can then wander around, undirected, until they finally curl up in America's living rooms like so many mysterious, uninvited guests. These intruders may be rude and destructive, but no one is supposed to be able to get rid of them, in part because no one is supposed to be able to sort out or pinpoint how they got there in the first place. Thus, although Karl Rove has lurked in the background of an unprecedented number of whisper and smear campaigns -- that, for instance, John McCain had an illegitimate child (a rumor spread during the Republican primaries that preceded the 2000 election), or that former Texas Governor Ann Richards was a lesbian (a persistent rumor that was spread during Bush's Texas gubernatorial campaign) -- he has never been held accountable. And that is a state of affairs to which Rove became accustomed.

Rove has escaped responsibility for his sneaky campaign tricks because the candidates for whom he has worked -- most prominently, George Bush -- have had a stunning ability to accept, unquestioningly, the miraculous appearance of information that takes down their opponents. They had no problem about endorsing brazen dishonesty or the least interest in ferreting out bad actors in their camps. At the same time, opposing candidates have had neither the resources, nor the time to fully investigate the attacks before plummeting in the polls. Afterwards, of course, it was already far too late.

Unlike Rove's former adversaries in the political world, however, Fitzgerald has both the time and investigative resources. When Fitzgerald was appointed special prosecutor, all the known facts on the outing of Valerie Wilson indicated that government officials had broken the rules, if not the law. It's no surprise then that Fitzgerald has pursued the matter vigorously; nor should it be a surprise that Rove's statement to the FBI on October 8 would have raised some obvious red flags and caused Fitzgerald to become skeptical. Rove deliberately omitted key information about conversations with reporters that he could not possibly have forgotten; he claimed to have heard classified government information only from a reporter -- despite the fact that he himself was one of the highest government officials in the nation; and then he admitted that he had no qualms about enlisting surrogates to betray government employees in order to achieve political gain.

Rove's statement raised more questions than answers. It also opened a window into the world of a President's key adviser who never left campaign mode and who had never before been tripped up, no matter what he did. Such a man would be quite unprepared for an investigator like Fitzgerald who operates under a very different timetable and in a world ordered by radically different rules.

Now that Rove's statement has been shown to be so obviously false, it would be most surprising if when his world and Fitzgerald's collide, the result isn't a political earthquake. The moment an earthquake arrives remains impossible to predict, but it would be surprising if, in the CIA leak case, the impact of a Rove indictment did not cause massive aftershocks.

Elizabeth de la Vega is a former federal prosecutor with more than 20 years of experience. During her tenure, she was a member of the Organized Crime Strike Force and Chief of the San Jose Branch of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California. Her pieces have appeared in the Nation Magazine, the Los Angeles Times, and Salon. She writes regularly for Tomdispatch. She may be contacted at ElizabethdelaVega@Verizon.net.

Copyright 2006 Elizabeth de la Vega

Thursday, February 02, 2006

What Is Plan B?


By Terrence McNally, AlterNet. Posted February 2, 2006.


Eradicate poverty, reforest the earth, restore fisheries, eliminate overgrazing, protect biological diversity, stabilize climate -- Lester Brown says it's all possible.

020206_story

Of all the resources needed to build an economy that will sustain economic progress, none is more scarce than time. That is one of the key messages of Lester Brown's new book, "Plan B. 2.0: Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble." The world may finally be listening.

China now consumes more grain, meat, coal and steel than the United States. If China's income grows as projected, in 2031 its income per person will match incomes in the United States today. At that point, it will be consuming the equivalent of two-thirds of the current world grain harvest, driving 1.1 billion cars (versus 800 million in the world today) and using 99 million barrels of oil per day, well above current world production of 84 million barrels. That's Plan A.

New threats -- climate change, environmental degradation, the persistence of poverty and the loss of hope -- call for new strategies. Brown -- who left World Watch in 2001 to found Earth Policy Institute -- says it's time for Plan B -- a renewable-energy-based, reuse-recycle economy with a diversified transport system: time to build a new economy and a new world. The world is now spending $975 billion annually for military purposes. Plan B -- social goals and earth restoration -- requires an additional annual expenditure of $161 billion.

Brown, founder of the World Watch Institute, was in Europe recently to address the Royal Geographic Society in London, the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and the OECD in Paris. He will speak to the World Affairs Councils of San Francisco and Los Angeles the first week of February.

TERRENCE MCNALLY: For many, environmental issues are local -- the beach, the nearby polluting factory, the smog. Yet you focused on the global environment at a time when few were. Where did that come from?

LESTER BROWN: Well I suppose there were a number of things that contributed to it. One was, when I was farming I was very much aware of the environmental issues that one has to deal with, whether it's water resources or weather or soils or crop diseases or what have you.

Beyond that, after I graduated from Rutgers in 1955 with a degree in agricultural science, I had the chance to spend half of 1956 living in villages in India, and there I was exposed very directly to the food population issue, though India at that time had only 430 million people or so compared with over a billion today.

Then I became a foreign policy adviser to Secretary of Agriculture Orville Freeman during the Kennedy-Johnson administration. The population pressures on resources and the problems associated with that, whether it's deforestation or overgrazing or soil erosion, aquifer depletion, those problems were becoming evident way back then. By 1974 I was convinced not only that these were going to be major issues, but also that we needed a research institute to focus on environmental issues at the global level.

TM: Yet you also make clear that we need a vision of the future, not just the bad news.

LB: No question. If we don't have a sense of where we want to go, we're probably not going to get there. I think one of the things that's lacking in the global environmental movement is a vision. We spend so much time being against things, it's not always clear what we're for.

TM: In the first paragraph of the Preface to "Plan B: 2.0," you write: "If our goal is to sustain economic progress, we have no choice other than to move onto a new path." Two things -- first, you don't mention the word "environment" in that sentence, you're talking about economic progress. Second, why isn't that reality being recognized and acted on?

LB: Two things are driving the recognition of the need for a restructuring of the global economy. One is the knowledge of what's happening to the economy's environmental support systems, whether it's forests or fisheries or rangelands or soils or aquifers or the climate system. Many environmentalists have been clear for some time that we have to restructure the economy if we want progress to continue. If we don't, we're going to be in serious trouble.

In Jared Diamond's book, "Collapse," he looked at earlier civilizations, many of which also got on to an economic path that was environmentally unsustainable. He pointed out was that some of those early civilizations realized they were in trouble and made the needed course corrections to survive. Others either did not understand they were in environmental trouble, or understood it but politically they could not mobilize an effective response.

TM: "Plan B" came out two years ago. Why did you feel the need to deliver "Plan B: 2.0"?

LB: Enough things have changed over the past two years, both in terms of what we can do and the potential of new technologies like gas-electric hybrid cars and advances in wind turbine design, and so forth. But more importantly, the evidence first of all, that China has already overtaken the United States in the consumption of most basic resources.

Ever since you and I can remember, we've been saying that the U.S. with 5 percent of the world's people consumes a third or 40 percent of the world's resources. That was true for a long time. It is no longer true. China is now consuming more of these basic resources. Look at the food sector -- grain and meat, the energy sector -- oil and coal, the industrial sector -- steel. China now consumes more of all of those than the United States except for oil. Their consumption of meat is nearly double that of the United States, and their steel consumption, 258 million tons a year. We consumed 104 million tons a year last year.

TM: India is expected to overtake China in terms of population. We hear about India mostly in terms of outsourcing jobs to India. What's its take on resources?

LB: India has a huge population, but they're still mostly poor; they're a good 20 years behind China. They're probably where China was in 1980 or '85.

TM: Having said that, India still has a middle class of about 300 million, about the size of the entire U.S. population.

LB: That's right and it's growing fast.

Now that China has overtaken the U.S. in the total consumption of resources, we have license to ask the next question: What if China catches up to the U.S. in consumption per person? If their economy, which has been growing at 9 or 10 percent a year in recent years, drops down to 8 percent a year, by 2031, income per person in China will be the same as that in the U.S. today. By 2031 we're probably talking about 1.45 billion Chinese.

TM: 1.45 billion consuming at the rate we consume today is impossible. China alone would consume more than one earth at that point.

LB: Based on those projections, in 2031, China would be consuming two thirds of the current world grain harvest. Their consumption of paper would be double current world production. There go the world's forests. If China in 2031 has three cars for every four people, as we now have in this country, it would have a fleet of 1.1 billion cars.

The current global fleet is 800 million. They would have to pave over an area comparable to the land they now have in rice, and they would be consuming 99 million barrels of oil a day. The world is currently producing 84 million barrels a day and will probably never produce much more than that.

TM: Because we're also close to or about to hit peak oil. We've heard the diagnosis. What's the prescription? What is Plan B?

LB: The Western economic model, the fossil fuel-based, automobile-centered throw-away economy, is not going to work for China. It won't work for India, which by 2031 will have an even larger population, nor will it work for the other three billion people in the developing countries, who are also dreaming the American dream. Most importantly, it will not work for the industrial countries either in a world that is more and more integrated economically and where we all depend on the same oil, grain and iron ore.

So then the question becomes, if the old economy won't work, what will the new economy look like?

We can see this much more clearly than we could even two years ago, and that's exciting. It will be powered by renewable sources of energy. It will have a comprehensive re-use recycle system, and it will have a much more diversified transport system, not as much the automobile-centered system we now have.

We can now see the new economy beginning to emerge in various places around the world. We see it in the wind farms of Western Europe, the solar rooftops of Japan, the bicycle-friendly streets of Amsterdam, the reforested mountains of South Korea and the growing fleet of gas-electric hybrid cars in the United States. It's beginning to take shape, but it's not moving fast enough.

TM: What is it going to take to accelerate that?

LB: It's difficult to say. I play around with scenarios that will wake us up. The situation today reminds me a bit of the United States in the early 1940s when we were trying to ignore the war in Europe and the war in Asia, somehow thinking that we could get through without getting involved -- and then came Pearl Harbor. Overnight literally everything changed, and we mobilized for a war like you've never seen a country mobilize before. It was an extraordinary performance, but it took a very clear, distinct wake-up call.

TM: At the point at which we get a wake-up call that extreme, it may be too late to reverse some of those things, isn't that true?

LB: It's quite possible that the wake-up call will come too late.

TM: I'm an optimist. I look at the negatives that we see right now -- the incompetence in the war and the response to Katrina, the rampant corruption in D.C. -- as perhaps offering a teachable moment. Could Plan B offer the kind of dream -- like Martin Luther King Jr.'s civil rights dream or John Kennedy's Apollo mission -- that could rally people to take on a big challenge that's not a military challenge?

LB: That's an exciting way to put it. I think of King from time to time -- "I have a dream." He kept repeating that theme and described various parts of it, and it became a shared vision of our society.

The wake-up call could come with another disruption in the supply of oil that would drive prices up to, say, $100 a barrel, which is entirely feasible. Another less direct possibility: When the price of oil gets up to $60 a barrel, it becomes profitable to convert many agricultural commodities into automotive fuel. Almost everything that we eat can be converted either into ethanol or bio-diesel to run automobiles. As we develop the ethanol distilling capacity and the bio-diesel refining capacity, the price of oil begins to set the price of food. If the food value of a commodity is less than the fuel value, it will be converted into fuel.

TM: In other words, we would take food out of the mouths of the poor and put it into the fuel tanks of the rich?

LB: That's right. One of the consequences of high oil prices is that it sets up direct competition between supermarkets and service stations for the same commodities. The difference is that, in agricultural terms, the appetite of service stations is basically insatiable.

TM: If the world gets hammered this year and next year as they did last year by weather disasters, the people or the insurance companies are going to say, something has to be done about climate change -- another possible wake-up call. What is Plan B?

LB: Plan B has three components: (1) a restructuring of the global economy so that it can sustain civilization; (2) an all-out effort to eradicate poverty, stabilize population and restore hope in order to elicit participation of the developing countries; and (3) a systematic effort to restore natural systems.

Virtually everything we need to do to build an economy that will sustain economic progress is already being done in one or more countries. In Europe, for instance, which is leading the world into the wind era, some 40 million people now get their residential electricity from wind farms. The European Wind Energy Association projects that by 2020, half of the region's population -- 195 million Europeans -- will be getting their residential electricity from wind.

TM: But it's not just about new technologies, is it?

LB: That's right. Building an economy that will sustain economic progress also means eradicating poverty and stabilizing population -- in effect, restoring hope among the world's poor. Eradicating poverty accelerates the shift to smaller families. Smaller families in turn help to eradicate poverty.

The principal line items in the budget to eradicate poverty are investments in universal primary school education; school lunch programs for the poorest of the poor; basic village-level health care, including vaccinations for childhood diseases; and reproductive health and family planning services for all the world's women. In total, reaching these goals will take $68 billion of additional expenditures each year.

TM: Where does the environment fit in all this?

LB: A strategy for eradicating poverty will not succeed if an economy's environmental support systems are collapsing. This means putting together an earth restoration budget -- one to reforest the earth, restore fisheries, eliminate overgrazing, protect biological diversity and raise water productivity to the point where we can stabilize water tables and restore the flow of rivers. Adopted worldwide, these measures require additional expenditures of $93 billion per year.

Combining social goals and earth restoration components into a Plan B budget means an additional annual expenditure of $161 billion. Such an investment is huge, but it is not a charitable act. It is an investment in the world in which our children will live.

TM: Where's the money going to come from?

LB: The world is now spending $975 billion annually for military purposes. The U.S. 2006 military budget of $492 billion, accounting for half of the world total, goes largely to the development and production of new weapon systems. Unfortunately, these weapons are of little help in curbing terrorism, nor can they reverse the deforestation of the earth or stabilize climate.

If the United States were to underwrite the entire $161 billion Plan B budget by shifting resources from the $492 billion spent on the military, it still would be spending more for military purposes than all other NATO members plus Russia and China combined.

TM: I hardly imagine the slightest move in that direction for at least the next three years of a Bush administration …

LB: Of all the resources needed to build an economy that will sustain economic progress, none is more scarce than time. With climate change we may be approaching the point of no return. Nature is the timekeeper.

Like earlier civilizations that got into environmental trouble, we can decide to stay with business as usual and watch our global economy decline and eventually collapse. One way or another, the decision will be made by our generation. Of that there is little doubt. But it will affect life on earth for all generations to come.

Interviewer Terrence McNally hosts Free Forum on KPFK 90.7FM, Los Angeles (streaming at kpfk.org).

The State of Energy


The New York Times | Editorial

Wednesday 01 February 2006

President Bush devoted two minutes and 15 seconds of his State of the Union speech to energy independence. It was hardly the bold signal we've been waiting for through years of global warming and deadly struggles in the Middle East, where everything takes place in the context of what Mr. Bush rightly called our "addiction" to imported oil.

Last night's remarks were woefully insufficient. The country's future economic and national security will depend on whether Americans can control their enormous appetite for fossil fuels. This is not a matter to be lumped in a laundry list of other initiatives during a once-a-year speech to Congress. It is the key to everything else.

If Mr. Bush wants his final years in office to mean more than a struggle to re-spin failed policies and cement bad initiatives into permanent law, this is the place where he needs to take his stand. And he must do it with far more force and passion than he did last night.


American overdependence on oil has been a disaster for our foreign policy. It weakens the nation's international leverage and empowers exactly the wrong countries. Last night Mr. Bush told the people that "the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons," but he did not explain how that will happen when those same nations are so dependent on Tehran's oil. Iran ranks second in oil reserves only to Saudi Arabia, where members of the elite help finance Osama bin Laden and his ilk, and where the United States finds it has little power to stop them.

Oil is a seller's market, in part because of America's voracious consumption. India and China, with their growing energy needs, have both signed deals with Iran. Rogue states like Sudan are given political cover by their oil customers. The United Nations may wish to do something about genocide in Darfur or nuclear proliferation, but its most powerful members are hamstrung by their oil alliances with some of the worst leaders on the planet.

Even if the war on terror had never begun, Mr. Bush would have an obligation to be serious about the energy issue, given the enormous danger to the nation's economy if we fail to act. His own Energy Department predicts that with the rapid development of India and China, annual global consumption will rise from about 80 million barrels of oil a day to 119 million barrels by 2025. Absent efforts to reduce American consumption, these new demands will lead to soaring oil prices, inflation and a loss of America's trade advantage. It should be a humbling shock to American leaders that Brazil has managed to become energy self-sufficient during a period when the United States was focused on building bigger SUV's.

Part of the answer, as Mr. Bush indicated last night, is the continued development of alternative fuels, especially for cars. The Energy Department has addressed this modestly, and last night the president said his budget would add more money for research. That's fine, but hardly the kind of full-bore national initiative that will pump large amounts of money into the commercial production of alternatives to gasoline.

When it comes to cars, much of the research has already been done - Brazil got to energy independence by figuring out how to get its citizens home from work in cars run without much gasoline. The answer is producing the new fuels that have already been developed and getting cars that use them on the lots. There are several ways to make that happen. The president could call for higher fuel economy standards for car manufacturers. He could bring up the subject of a gas tax - the most effective way of getting Americans to buy fuel-efficient cars, and a market-based tax on consumption that conservative lawmakers ought to embrace if they are honest with themselves and their constituents. But Mr. Bush took the safe, easy and relatively meaningless route instead.

There is still an enormous amount to be done to find new sources of clean, cheap power to heat homes and create electricity. But regrettably, the president made it clear last night that he would rather spend the country's resources on tax cuts for the wealthy. The oil companies are currently flush with profits from the same high prices that have plagued consumers, and the president might have asked the assembled legislators whether their current tax breaks might be redirected into a real energy initiative.


Simply calling for more innovation is painless. The hard part is calling for anything that smacks of sacrifice - on the part of consumers or special interests, and politicians who depend on their support. After 9/11, the president had the perfect moment to put the nation on the road toward energy independence, when people were prepared to give up their own comforts in the name of a greater good. He passed it by, and he missed another opportunity last night.

Of all the defects in Mr. Bush's energy presentation, the greatest was his unwillingness to address global warming - an energy-related emergency every bit as critical as our reliance on foreign oil. Except for a few academics on retainer at the more backward energy companies, virtually no educated scientist disputes that the earth has grown warmer over the last few decades - largely as a result of increasing atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide produced by the burning of fossil fuels.

The carbon lodged in the atmosphere by the Industrial Revolution over the last 150 years has already taken a toll: disappearing glaciers, a thinning Arctic icecap, dead or dying coral reefs, increasingly violent hurricanes. Even so, given robust political leadership and technological ingenuity, the worst consequences - widespread drought and devastating rises in sea levels - can be averted if society moves quickly to slow and ultimately reverse its output of greenhouse gases. This will require a fair, cost-effective program of carbon controls at home and a good deal of persuasion and technological assistance in countries like China, which is building old-fashioned, carbon-producing coal-fired power plants at a frightening clip.

Mr. Bush said he would look for cleaner ways to power our homes and offices, and provide more money for the Energy Department's search for a "zero emission" coal-fired plant whose carbon dioxide emissions can be injected harmlessly into the ground without adding to the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere. But once again he chose to substitute long-range research - and a single, government-sponsored research program at that - for the immediate investments that have to be made across the entire industrial sector.

That Mr. Bush has taken a pass on this issue is a negligence from which the globe may never recover. While he seems finally to have signed on to the idea that the earth is warming, and that humans are heavily responsible, he has rejected serious proposals to do anything about it and allowed his advisers on the issue to engage in a calculated program of disinformation. At the recent global summit on warming, his chief spokesmen insisted that the president's program of voluntary reductions by individual companies had resulted in a reduction in emissions, when in fact the reverse was true.


The State of the Union speech is usually a feel-good event, and no one could fault Mr. Bush's call for research, or fail to applaud his call for replacing more than 75 percent of the nation's oil imports from the Middle East within the next two decades. But while the goal was grand, the means were minuscule. The president has never been serious about energy independence. Like so many of our leaders, he is content to acknowledge the problem and then offer up answers that do little to disturb the status quo. If the war on terror must include a war on oil dependence, Mr. Bush is in retreat.

GAO Faults Federal Government for Katrina Response


By William Branigin
The
Washington Post

Wednesday 01 February 2006

DHS rejects report while New Orleans mayor backs claims.

Despite plenty of advance disaster warning and decade-old recommendations on preparedness, the federal government failed to exercise adequate leadership in response to Hurricane Katrina and was slow to determine the scope of the catastrophe, the Government Accountability Office reported today.

In a preliminary report submitted to a House committee investigating the hurricane response, Comptroller General David M. Walker pointed to a failure of federal leadership as Katrina bore down on the Gulf Coast last year, with neither Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff nor any of his deputies stepping in to lead the relief effort.

The GAO chief indicated that national response planning for major disasters continues to be plagued by "weaknesses."

The Department of Homeland Security rejected the report as "premature and unprofessional" and complained that the findings were riddled with errors.

In the Senate, meanwhile, the mayor of New Orleans appeared to back the main thrust of the GAO report, testifying at a committee hearing that he had been frustrated by the lack of a "clear chain of command" for relief and recovery efforts.

The GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, submitted its report to the House Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina, chaired by Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.). The committee plans to include the GAO conclusions in a report scheduled to be released Feb. 15.

Walker's nine-page statement of "preliminary observations" noted that "several federal, state and local agencies were clearly overwhelmed in response to Hurricane Katrina," resulting in "widespread dissatisfaction with the level of preparedness." But he said many of the lessons emerging from the disaster were "similar to those GAO identified more than a decade ago," after Hurricane Andrew devastated South Florida. For example, Walker said, the GAO in 1993 "recommended that the president designate a senior official in the White House to oversee federal preparedness for, and response to, major catastrophic disasters."

He said the GAO continues to believe that a single person accountable to the president must act as "the central focal point" to lead the federal response.

However, Walker said, "Neither the DHS Secretary nor any of his designees, such as the Principal Federal Official (PFO), filled this leadership role during Hurricane Katrina, which serves to underscore the immaturity of and weaknesses relating to the current national response framework." The references were to Chertoff and the former head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Michael Brown.

"No one was designated in advance to lead the overall federal response in anticipation of the event despite clear warnings from the National Hurricane Center," Walker said in the statement. In addition, "governmental entities did not act decisively or quickly enough to determine the catastrophic nature of the incident," he said.

Chertoff, for example, designated Katrina as "an incident of national significance" on Aug. 30, the day after the massive storm made landfall. He did not designate it as a "catastrophic event," which would have triggered a "more proactive response" under the National Response Plan, Walker said.

"As a result, the federal posture generally was to wait for the affected states to request assistance," he said.

Because Brown's leadership role was "unclear," Walker said, "the efforts of all federal agencies involved in the response remained disjointed."

As a result, Walker said, "there were multiple chains of command, a myriad of approaches and processes for requesting and providing assistance and confusion about who should be advised of requests and what resources would be provided within specific time frames."

In response, the Department of Homeland Security complained that Walker had publicized an "incomplete" report "without even bothering to talk to the senior leadership" of the department.

"The resulting report is premature and unprofessional," DHS press secretary Russ Knocke said in a statement. "Apart from its obvious errors, it displays a significant misunderstanding of core aspects of the Katrina response that could have easily been corrected in the most basic conversations with DHS leaders."

For example, the report places undue emphasis on designating the hurricane as a catastrophic event, when such designations are for sudden disasters for which no personnel or supplies have been pre-positioned, the statement said. Moreover, the president's emergency declarations during the weekend before Katrina struck activated the National Response Plan and "gave FEMA full authority to coordinate the federal response in the field," it said.

The statement said the GAO report also "falsely implies inaction by DHS and FEMA before landfall," when in fact state officials were satisfied with "the federal government's asset pre-positioning and other pre-hurricane assistance."

The statement said DHS has already acknowledged that "federal, state and local response capabilities were overwhelmed by the size and scope of Hurricane Katrina" and that the storm "revealed problems in national response capabilities," demonstrating the need for more planning.

"For that reason, we are working closely with Congress, the administration and state and local responders to address shortcomings in planning and response," the statement said. It said the department soon will unveil "a comprehensive strategy to improve the nation's capability to manage catastrophic incidents."

In testimony before the Senate Homeland Security Committee, New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin was asked about a meeting he attended with President Bush and Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D) on Sept. 2, four days after the hurricane struck.

"I was specifically asking for a clear chain of command as it related to who had final authority, so that we could get things moving much quicker," Nagin said. "I felt as though ... there was an incredible dance going on between the federal government and the state government on who had final authority. And it was impeding, in my humble opinion, the recovery efforts, and it was very frustrating."

At one point, "I stopped everyone and basically said, 'Mr. President, Madame Governor, if the two of you don't get together on this issue, more people are going to die in this city, and you need to resolve this immediately,'" the New Orleans mayor told the committee.

He said later, "There needed to be more resources that came much quicker and not necessarily a dance on, you know, whether state or federal authority rules. I mean, that's just ridiculous to me."

Five months after the hurricane, the federal government still has not met some of the city's top needs, Nagin said. He said New Orleans has requested more than 45,000 temporary homes, such as trailers, but so far has received fewer than 2,000.

"Since the storm, we have been a financially crippled municipality struggling to bring our city back," Nagin said. "Hurricane Katrina, like 9/11 and other disasters before, has taught us that improvements in planning for disasters must be made at all levels of government."

Cindy Sheehan Arrested

Editor's Note: Much has been made of the arrest of Gold Star mother Cindy Sheehan before last night's State of the Union address. Mainstream media coverage has made it seem as if Sheehan was in the balcony of the House of Representatives under false pretenses. In fact, she was invited. Representative Lynn Woolsey, Democrat of California, personally purchased a ticket to the speech for Sheehan. Below, please find Rep. Woolsey's statement regarding the arrest of Cindy Sheehan. --wrp/TO

Woolsey Statement regarding Cindy Sheehan
By Representative Lynn Woolsey
t r u t h o u t | Statement

Wednesday 01 February 2006

Washington, DC - US Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma) today issued the following statement regarding Cindy Sheehan's arrest in the gallery of the House of Representatives before the State of the Union address. Mrs. Sheehan was Rep. Lynn Woolsey's guest to the President's State of the Union address.

"Since when is free speech conditional on whether you agree with the President? Cindy Sheehan, who gave her own flesh and blood for this disastrous war, did not violate any rules of the House of Representatives. She merely wore a shirt that highlighted the human cost of the Iraq war and expressed a view different than that of the President. Free speech and the First Amendment exist to protect dissenting statements like Ms. Sheehan's last night."

"Stifling the truth will not blind Americans to the immorality of sending young Americans to die in an unnecessary war, against a nation that posed no threat to our security. The President's speech last night was yet another attempt to distort history, as he suggested - once again - that the 9/11 terrorists came from Iraq. Everyone knows this is not true. We must not be afraid to say that the emperor has no clothes. It's time to bring our troops home."

VIRTUAL MARCH

Last night, President Bush gave his State of the Union Address. He did not, however, address the serious threats to our wildlife and natural legacy from Big Oil and their friends in Congress.

It's time we stand together to take on the politicians and greedy special interests that are threatening our natural heritage, our health, and the wildlife you and I care about! Along with our partners at Care2.com, today we're launching our Earth Day Virtual March to Leave No Species Behind.

This is a crucial time for our vanishing wildlife -- Please sign up now to join our virtual march on Washington!

Why should you march? Because…

  • Our wolves, big cats and other endangered critters should be around for our children and grandchildren to enjoy.
  • Our water should be free of mercury and pesticides, our air unpolluted, and our beaches unspoiled by pollution from offshore oil drilling.
  • And folks like you and me -- not just the free-spending lobbyists and greedy special interests who pay them -- deserve a say in the policies that affect our country’s precious wildlife and other natural treasures.

Representative Richard Pombo, handpicked lieutenant of indicted former House Majority Leader Representative Tom DeLay, has launched an unprecedented assault on our wildlife and vanishing wild places.

Pombo has spent the last year proposing legislation to sell off some of our most beautiful national parks and to promote harmful drilling off our coasts and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He pushed to allow the transfer of millions of acres of public lands to mining companies and real estate developers. And he was the architect of a bill that would take a wrecking ball to the Endangered Species Act.

For too long, Pombo and his pals in Congress have waged war on our wildlife while they pocketed huge campaign donations from Big Oil, timber companies, and irresponsible developers.

Let's take a stand for our treasured wildlife! Please join the Virtual March to Leave No Species Behind and urge your Representative and Senators to vote against Pombo's anti-wildlife agenda.

Between now and Earth Day, the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund and our partners at Care2.com are committed to bringing together tens of thousands of concerned citizens in an unprecedented virtual march on Washington.

In fact, we’re so determined to make this march a success that we’re bringing our most powerful asset to bear -- you, your friends, and your family.

For every person you recruit to participate in the Virtual March to Leave No Species Behind, you’ll be entered for a chance to win a brand new iPod Nano! The more people you recruit, the greater your chance to win… And the best part is that you’ll be able to track the impact you’re making on a personal, interactive map that shows all the people you’ve recruited.

So please take just a moment out of your day to be a part of something big -- Join the Virtual March to Leave No Species Behind.

Thank you for all you do to protect wildlife. With your help, we’ll make sure the politicians in Washington take notice.

Sincerely,

Rodger Schlickeisen, President
Rodger Schlickeisen
President
Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund
Rodger Schlickeisen, President (c)Daniel J. Cox/www.naturalexpos

P.S. You can even write out your own protest sign, so join the virtual march now and let the whole world know how you feel!

Wednesday, February 01, 2006

THE AYATOLLAH RETURNS TO IRAN:


February 1, 1979

On February 1, 1979, the Ayatollah Khomeini returns to Iran in triumph after 15
years of exile. The shah and his family had fled the country two weeks before,
and jubilant Iranian revolutionaries were eager to establish a fundamentalist
Islamic government under Khomeini's leadership.Born around the turn of the
century, Ruhollah Khomeini was the son of an Islamic religious scholar and in
his youth memorized the Qur'an. He was a Shiite--the branch of Islam practiced
by a majority of Iranians--and soon devoted himself to the formal study of Shia
Islam in the city of Qom. A devout cleric, he rose steadily in the informal
Shiite hierarchy and attracted many disciples.In 1941, British and Soviet troops
occupied Iran and installed Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as the second modern shah of
Iran. The new shah had close ties with the West, and in 1953 British and U.S.
intelligence agents helped him overthrow a popular political rival. Mohammad
Reza embraced many Western ideas and in 1963 launched his "White Revolution," a
broad government program that called for the reduction of religious estates in
the name of land redistribution, equal rights for women, and other modern
reforms.Khomeini, now known by the high Shiite title "ayatollah," was the first
religious leader to openly condemn the shah's program of westernization. In
fiery dispatches from his Faziye Seminary in Qom, Khomeini called for the
overthrow of the shah and the establishment of an Islamic state. In 1963,
Mohammad Reza imprisoned him, which led to riots, and on November 4, 1964,
expelled him from Iran.Khomeini settled in An Najaf, a Shiite holy city across
the border in Iraq, and sent home recordings of his sermons that continued to
incite his student followers. Breaking precedence with the Shiite tradition that
discouraged clerical participation in government, he called for Shiite leaders
to govern Iran.In the 1970s, Mohammad Reza further enraged Islamic
fundamentalists in Iran by holding an extravagant celebration of the 2,500th
anniversary of the pre-Islamic Persian monarchy and replaced the Islamic
calendar with a Persian calendar. As discontent grew, the shah became more
repressive, and support for Khomeini grew. In 1978, massive anti-shah
demonstrations broke out in Iran's major cities. Dissatisfied members of the
lower and middle classes joined the radical students, and Khomeini called for
the shah's immediate overthrow. In December, the army mutinied, and on January
16, 1979, the shah fled.Khomeini arrived in Tehran in triumph on February 1,
1979, and was acclaimed as the leader of the Iranian Revolution. With religious
fervor running high, he consolidated his authority and set out to transform Iran
into a religious state. On November 4, 1979, the 15th anniversary of his exile,
students stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran and took the staff hostage. With
Khomeini's approval, the radicals demanded the return of the shah to Iran and
held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. The shah died in Egypt of cancer in July
1980. In December 1979, a new Iranian constitution was approved, naming Khomeini
as Iran's political and religious leader for life. Under his rule, Iranian women
were denied equal rights and required to wear a veil, Western culture was
banned, and traditional Islamic law and its often-brutal punishments were
reinstated. In suppressing opposition, Khomeini proved as ruthless as the shah,
and thousands of political dissidents were executed during his decade of rule.In
1980, Iraq invaded Iran's oil-producing province of Khuzestan. After initial
advances, the Iraqi offense was repulsed. In 1982, Iraq voluntarily withdrew and
sought a peace agreement, but Khomeini renewed fighting. Stalemates and the
deaths of thousands of young Iranian conscripts in Iraq followed. In 1988,
Khomeini finally agreed to a U.N.-brokered cease-fire.After the Ayatollah
Khomeini died on June 3, 1989, more than two million anguished mourners attended
his funeral. Gradual democratization began in Iran in early the 1990s,
culminating in a free election in 1997 in which the moderate reformist Mohammed
Khatami was elected president.

Veteran's Mother's State of Our Family Address

By Georgia Stillwell
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Tuesday 31 January 2006

My brothers and sisters in peace, I wish I could tell you that since my son has returned to civilian life our family is whole and happy, but this is not the case. My 21-year-old son is homeless, unemployed and on January 11th in the early morning he drove his car over an embankment. Anyone who has seen the car says he shouldn't have survived the crash.

I remember the day I got the phone call ... My son was back in the states. I fell to the floor sobbing, thanking the creator that my son was alive. Little did I know at the time that all that returned was a physical shell. My son's spirit and soul must still be wandering the streets of Iraq.

You'd have to know my son - this child turned man. My son used to be a sensitive guy. I remember when he wanted a kitten because dogs scared him. We went to a farm and he picked the scrawniest, ugliest, smallest kitten there. My son slept with that cat until the day he left for boot camp. Is this the same person that used to hold my hand as a teenager or throw his arm around me when we were out in public? Is this the same person who always made sure we said goodnight to each other and expressed our love? Who, when we were apart, talked on the phone as frequently as possible and always ended each phone call with, "I love you?" Is this the son who held me in his arms as we cried together at the airport when he was leaving for Iraq? Where is my son? GEORGE BUSH, GIVE ME BACK MY SON!

My son wouldn't look me in the eyes when he first returned from Iraq. He always seemed nervous and jumpy. Riding in the car with him he weaved from lane to lane avoiding any road debris. Toll booths made him crazy. He didn't sleep at night and seemed on edge. Alcohol was becoming his way to induce sleep.

Fast-forward to August 2005. I hadn't heard from my son in a while. He had been slowly pushing away everyone that loved and cared for him. We live in different states and it's hard to track him. In August, I found him. He looked like a skeleton. He looked so skinny. The soldier's body was long gone. His eyes held sadness. He asked for 20 bucks for food as he had none in his refrigerator. He only visited with me for a half hour even though I had driven 300 miles to see him. He took off. I went home. The phone calls became less and less. Days turned to months. I didn't hear from him at Thanksgiving, not a word at Christmas, New Year's passed without a sound.

Then came the dream. Mothers are bonded to their children. We know their hurts, their pains, we feel them even when they're thousands of miles away. On January 9th the dream came. In the dream there was an Iraqi, my son and me. We were attached through ropes. Suddenly my son was hoisted in the air and his body slammed against a beam and he couldn't breathe, he was choking ... I will never forget the look in his eyes. I woke up unnerved and unable to return to sleep.

The next morning I called my son's ex-girlfriend. They had been dating since their sophomore year in high school, but he had recently x'ed her out of his life. She stated my son had been arrested over the weekend for fighting. My son has only had one speeding ticket in his entire life ... Certainly not violent. Then, 2 hours later, my mother called. When my son returned from Iraq he bought a car with his combat pay, my mother cosigned. My mom stated that the bank had contacted her about a week ago and he was behind in payments. The car was up for repossession. I was becoming increasingly worried. When I got in to work the next day I had an emergency phone call from my sons ex-girlfriend. She told me through her tears that my son had driven his car over an embankment. She saw the car and said she couldn't believe he survived. She had talked to some of his friends who told her that he was crying that night and talking about the war. Whenever my son gets a few beers in him his friends tell me he talks about the war. They describe it as "crazy talk." He wants the blood of the Iraqis he killed off his hands. He then left and drove his car at high speed over an embankment.

I have spoken with my son twice since then. I didn't go see him at his request. The first time I spoke with him I began crying, telling him how much I loved him. His response, "Whatever."

During the second conversation he said he feels better. Does he feel better because his body feels bruised and broken? It now matches his insides.

George Bush is going to give us his state of the union ... well this is the state of my family. People say to me he volunteered, he knew what he was getting into. My son was still a teenager, he had no idea what he was getting into. Can anyone really comprehend war unless they've been there? The war has come home ... it is coming home with each soldier.

My son's body survived Iraq ... nothing else.

Georgia Stillwell is a member of Military Families Speak Out.

QUOTE OF THE DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I thought this was a timely quote, considering the rethoric that we are recieving concerning the Iraqui "war"........................PEACE..........................Scott

The war in Vietnam is going well and will succeed. - Defense Secretary
Robert McNamara, 1963

What we didn't hear tonight






Remember this? "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Those are George Bush's famous 16 words from his 2003 State of the Union address, delivered less than two months before he sent troops into war in Iraq.

They were false. Three years later Americans are still demanding answers on the manipulation of intelligence by an administration eager to start a war.

Americans have a lot of questions that went unanswered tonight. When George Bush delivered his State of the Union address, he had a big megaphone and the world's attention. He had the opportunity to regain some degree of credibility with the American people -- more than half of whom disapprove of his performance as president. But he failed to answer the real questions ordinary Americans have about the state of our union:

  • When will we have a new strategy in Iraq that protects American lives? Violence is increasing, not decreasing there and the mismanagement of this war has cost the lives of Americans and billions of dollars in fraud. And when will we secure our ports and chemical and nuclear plants, which remain vulnerable?
  • When will the Republican Party put its responsibility to the people before its greed and thirst for power? The Republican culture of corruption in the executive and legislative branches has violated the law and cost taxpayers billions.
  • When will President Bush and the Republican Congress wake up to the economic crisis tens of millions of Americans face? Good jobs are leaving this country, and many of the jobs that remain exploit working families by denying them adequate benefits. Millionaires and corporations receive tax breaks while Americans can't afford to save, and the gap between rich and poor continues to widen to levels unseen since the 19th century.
  • When will we finally do something for the 46 million Americans who lack health insurance? Many have had their lives ruined financially when the worst happened, and many more no longer seek the care they need because they cannot afford it.
  • When will we make serious strides towards energy independence? We get a greater percentage of our oil from cartels and dictatorships now than we did in 2000.
  • When will he take steps to further ensure retirement security for every American? Growing old with dignity is a right, not a privilege, and dismantling Social Security in favor of private accounts is the wrong direction for our society.

    If Bush and the Republicans would bother to answer these questions, the answers would be simple. But they won't answer.

    That's because the answer to each and every one is "Never." Never as long as they control our government, never as long as they can execute the same incompetent, dishonest and destructive government without paying a price at the ballot box. The answer will be "never" until we grow the operation and build the infrastructure to beat them.

    Part of that means telling people clearly and unambiguously what we stand for -- and I'll tell you right now:

  • Real security -- we will protect Americans at home by getting serious about homeland security, and address the real threats abroad by capturing or killing Osama bin Laden and focusing on actual (not imagined) nuclear proliferation. We will be prepared for the threats of tomorrow, and we will always tell the truth to our troops and the American people.
  • Honest leadership and open government -- we will end the criminal Republican culture of corruption and restore a sense of responsibility to elected office, and we will pass fundamental reforms that make government more honest, open, and accountable to the American people than ever before.
  • Economic prosperity and educational excellence -- we will keep good jobs from leaving and ensure that every job in America is a fair deal. We will balance the budget, ensure that the tax code is simple and fair, and invest in education to ensure that every American has an equal opportunity to succeed.
  • A health care system that works for everyone -- we will join every other industrialized country by making sure everyone has access to affordable health care. We will change a corrupt, inefficient system into one that makes sure the world's wealthiest country is also the healthiest.
  • Energy independence -- we will reduce our reliance on foreign oil by investing in cleaner and more efficient technology. We will treat energy independence as what it is -- not only a conservation issue, but an economic and national security issue.
  • Retirement security -- we will strengthen Social Security and make sure that a retirement with dignity is the right and expectation of every single American.

    Tonight and tomorrow, Republicans will be out in full force, spinning, distracting, distorting and dividing. But don't be fooled. You know what you heard in Bush's speech -- and you know the reality.

    When Republicans hurl insults and lies, we must be ready to stand up and speak the truth in response -- and to make sure our friends and neighbors are not afraid to do the same.

    Please take the time to write a letter to the editor about what's wrong with the Republican priorities -- and what we'll do to put America on the right track:

    http://www.democrats.org/sotu/rapidresponse

    We cannot sit back and let them attack us. And we cannot sit back and let them attack the values and ideals we hold dear.

    That's why we are investing millions of dollars and countless volunteer hours to build the Democratic Party everywhere. We're building a year-round, 50-state party capable of winning elections for every level of office.

    Building our party everywhere isn't only about electing more Democrats. It's about bringing people back into the political process and ensuring that we have at least one political party representative of, and responsible to, the people.

    These are not short-term investments, and we are not there yet. But we will only create lasting change if every single one of us takes responsibility for speaking out and organizing in our local community.

    Over the next ten months, that's exactly what we're going to do.

    Thank you.

    Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

  • Truth Behind Bush's Speech | Dems Don't Know Jack

    Top Stories from AlterNet for Feb. 1, 2006
    http://www.alternet.org/
    ______________________________

    AlterNet has two up-to-the-minute, incisive analyses
    of last night's State of the Union speech:

    DEAD MAN TALKING
    Joshua Holland, AlterNet
    Lowlights from the presidential address.
    http://www.alternet.org/story/31639

    SOTU, SLICED AND DICED
    Think Progress
    A guide to the truth behind the lies and fabrications in George
    Bush's State of the Union speech to Congress.
    http://www.alternet.org/story/31640/

    In addition, we're podcasting the Congressional Progressive
    Caucus' "Alternative State of the Union" presentations:
    http://www.alternet.org/story/31638/
    ______________________________


    DEMS DON'T KNOW JACK
    Greg Sargent, The American Prospect
    Not so bipartisan after all: A new study reveals that
    Abramoff's scummy money was twice as likely to line
    Republicans' pockets.
    http://www.alternet.org/story/31625/

    LYING ABOUT THE STATE OF THE UNION
    Molly Ivins, AlterNet
    As Bush officials keep more and more information from us,
    they are less and less accountable for what they do.
    http://www.alternet.org/story/31616/

    THE TRUTH ABOUT UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE
    Tyler Zimmer, Campus Progress
    What's the biggest obstacle in achieving health care for
    all? It may just be our misplaced skepticism.
    http://www.alternet.org/wiretap/31196/