Monday-Sunday, January 31-February 6, 2011

NOTHING BUT SHIT STREWN EVERYWHERE

Twenty years ago, one of the most diabolical slaughters in war history occurred in Iraq. Despite the assurances of the Bush I regime that retreating Iraqi soldiers would not be attacked, just the opposite happened. Iraqi soldiers and civilians were massacred after Saddam Hussein called for their exit of Kuwait.

More than 100,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed in five weeks, the majority during the 100-hour ground war. You may say, "This is war and people get killed." That’s true, but tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers were killed by illegal weapons in a most brutal manner that contradicted international laws that apply to war.

When then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell, was asked about the number of deaths the Iraqi military suffered, he said, "I don’t have a clue and I don’t plan to undertake any real effort to find out." This is the same man who stated several months after Desert Storm that his goal was to "make the world scared to death of the United States."

We all know how Powell as Secretary of State lied to the world about Iraq in 2002 and 2003, yet few remember his affinity for killing during the Gulf War. He was just as vicious and untruthful in 1991 as he was in the early part of the 21^st century.

Prior to the start of the ground phase, many countries were trying to dissuade the U.S. from attacking. Moscow came up with a peace plan that Bush called "a cruel hoax." Bush kept saying that the only objective was for Iraqi troops to leave Kuwait. When one reporter asked him how the Iraqis could retreat while they were still being heavily bombed, Bush answered, "That’s for them to find out."

On February 22, 1991, White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater played his own "cruel hoax." He stated, "The United States and its coalition partners reiterate that their forces will not attack retreating Iraqi forces."

Despite all the efforts to bring a peaceful conclusion, none was accepted by the U.S. Saddam Hussein ordered a retreat of Iraqi troops from Kuwait on February 25, 1991. This order, with Fitzwater’s earlier statement, appeared to be the beginning of the end of violence in Kuwait and Iraq.

Bush looked at it another way. He now had his chance to slaughter tens of thousands of defenseless soldiers and one of the most barbaric massacres in history began.

On February 25, 1991, at a junction of roads leading from Kuwait City, U.S. Marine aircraft, flying close support for ground troops, arrived and saw a five-vehicle-wide stream moving on the highway out of Kuwait City. The vehicles were occupied by Iraqi military personnel (mostly unarmed) and civilians of many nationalities.

The Marines allowed the vehicles to get out of the city and then laid down an aerial barrage of anti-armor mines across the road, making it impossible for the vehicles to move ahead. There were miles of vehicles and thousands of passengers who were not able to move. Kill zones were assigned to groups of eight aircraft sent into the target area every 15 minutes. According to Major General Royal N. Moore, commander of the Marine Air Wing 3, "It was like a turkey shoot until the weather turned sour."

By the morning of February 26, the 2^nd Marine Division and its augmenting armored brigade (the Tiger brigade) of the Army’s 2^nd Armored Division arrived on the scene. Other ground division followed. Now, the slaughter on what has become to be known as "The Highway of Death" began in earnest.

U.S. troops observed thousands of Iraqis trying to escape up the highway. They attacked the defenseless soldiers from the high ground, cutting to shreds vehicles and people trapped in a miles-long traffic jam. Allied jets repeatedly pounded the blocked vehicles. Schwarzkopf’s orders were "not to let anybody or anything out of Kuwait City."

On February 27, the first words hit the outside world about this carnage, however, it still would be a few more weeks until photographs of the destruction made their way to the public, and then only a few were seen. A pool reporter with the 2^nd Armored Division wrote:

As we drove slowly through the wreckage, our armored personnel carrier’s tracks splashed through great pools of bloody water. We passed dead soldiers lying, as if resting, without a mark on them. We found others cut up so badly; a pair of legs in its trousers would be 50 yards from the top half of the body. Four soldiers had died under a truck where they sought protection.

The Iraqi retreat extended north of Jahra, where the two main roads going into Iraq split at al-Mutlaa. Because the main road was so jammed, Iraqi troops were being diverted along a coastal route. These soldiers suffered the same fate as those on the Highway of Death. According to a U.S. Army officer on the scene (the coastal road):

There was nothing but shit strewn everywhere, five to seven miles of just solid bombed-out vehicles. The Air Force had been given the word to work over the entire area, to find anything that moved and take it out.

Surrendering Iraqi troops were also slaughtered. A media pool report of February 27 stated:

One Navy pilot, who asked not to be identified, said Iraqis have affixed white flags to their tanks and are riding with turrets open, scanning the skies with their binoculars. The flier said that under allied rules of engagement, pilots were still bombing tanks unless soldiers abandoned the vehicles and left them behind.

The first British pilots to arrive at the scenes of slaughter returned to their base. They protested taking part in attacking defenseless soldiers, but, under threat of court martial, they eventually took part in the massacre.

A report by Greenpeace called On Impact proclaimed:

Aboard the U.S. aircraft carrier USS Ranger, air strikes against Iraqi troops were being launched so feverishly … that pilots said they took whatever bombs happened to be closest to the flight deck. S-3 Viking anti-submarine patrol aircraft were brought into the bombing campaign, carrying cluster bombs. The number of attacking aircraft was so dense that air traffic control had to divert planes to avoid collisions.

On March 10, the scenes at the coastal road were still horrendous. Reporter Michael Kelly described them:

For a 50 or 60-mile stretch from just north of Jahra to the Iraqi border, the road was littered with exploded and roasted vehicles, charred and blown-up bodies … I saw no bodies that had not belonged to men in uniform. It was not always easy to ascertain this because the force of the explosions and the heat of the fires had blown most of the clothing off the soldiers, and often too had cooked their remains into wizened, mummified, charcoal-men.

General McPeak took great pride in the slaughter. He said, "When enemy armies are defeated, they retreat. It’s during this phase that the true fruits of victory are achieved from combat, when the enemy’s disorganized." Less than a week after the White House spokesman assured the world that U.S. forces would not attack a retreating Iraqi army, most of the army was destroyed while it was retreating.

When the operation was completed, Iraq was stuck with the bill. One of the conditions of the cease-fire was that Iraq had to pay Kuwait $50 billion in reparations for damage caused by the U.S. When the oil-for-food program began, the first 15% of all revenues taken in by Iraq went to Kuwait.

The most appalling aspect of this end to Desert Storm was the bravado of the U.S. government and the top military officers. They ordered this unnecessary slaughter and took glee every time they publicly spoke of it. Powell and McPeak gained the military accolades that had diverted them a couple of decades earlier in Vietnam.

In addition to the Highway of Death carnage, an incident occurred that has since been forgotten by most of the world. On the first two days of the ground war (February 24 and 25, 1991), U.S. troops, using tanks and earthmovers that had been specially-fitted with plows, buried thousands of Iraqi soldiers alive.

Three brigades of the 1^st Mechanized Infantry Division (the Big Red One) used the tactic to destroy trenches and bunkers that were defended by about 10,000 Iraqi soldiers. These combatants were draftees, not seasoned troops such as the Republican Guard.

The assault was carefully planned and rehearsed. According to U.S. participants, about 2,000 Iraqis surrendered and were not buried. Most of the rest, about 8,000, were buried beneath tons of sand — many trying to surrender. Captain Bernie Williams was rewarded for his part in the burying with a Silver Star. He said, "Once we went through there, other than the ones who surrendered, there wasn’t anybody left."

According to a senior Army official who, under anonymity, was questioned by The Spotlight about the tactics, the use of earthmovers is standard procedure in breaching obstacles and minefields. The heavy equipment precedes armored and infantry units to level barriers, then the vehicles can move quickly through enemy defenses. The official stated that any Iraqi troops who remained in their bunkers would have been buried and killed. He added, "This is war. This isn’t a pickup basketball game."

Colonel Anthony Moreno, commander of the 2^nd Brigade, said, "For all I know, we could’ve killed thousands." A thinner line of trenches on Moreno’s left flank was attacked by the 1^st Brigade, commanded by Colonel Lon Maggart. He estimated that his troops alone buried about 650 Iraqis alive.

After the cease-fire, in an interview with New York Newsday, Maggart and Moreno came forward with some of the first public testimony about the burying alive of Iraqi soldiers. Prior to their interview, then Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney, never mentioned the atrocities, even when he submitted a report to Congress just prior to the interviews.

The technique used in burying the soldiers involved a pair of M1-A1 tanks with plows shaped like giant teeth along each section of the trench line. The tanks took up positions on either side of the trenches. Bradley fighting vehicles and Vulcan armored personnel carriers straddled the trench line and fired into the Iraqi soldiers as the tanks covered them with piles of sand.

Moreno recalled, "I came through right after the lead company. What you saw was a bunch of buried trenches with peoples’ arms and things sticking out of them." Maggart added, "I know burying people alive sounds pretty nasty, but it would be even nastier if we had to put our troops in the trenches and clean them out."

The attack contradicted U.S. Army doctrine, which calls for troops to leave their armored vehicle to clean out trenches or to bypass and isolate fortified positions. Moreno admitted that the assault was not according to policy:

This was not doctrine. My concept is to defeat the enemy with your power and equipment. We’re going to have to bludgeon them with every piece of equipment we’ve got. I’m not going to sacrifice the lives of my soldiers — it’s not cost-effective.

The most disturbing aspect of the incident was the secrecy involved. When Newsday broke the story, many were taken by surprise. According to members of the U.S. House and Senate Armed Forces Committees, the Pentagon had withheld details of the assault from the committees. Senate Chairman, Sam Nunn, was unaware of the assault and after he was notified, he stated, "It sounds like another example of the horrors of war." Quickly, the incident was forgotten.

The killing of defenseless soldiers and civilians did not end with the cease-fire. On the morning of March 2 (two days after the cease-fire was announced), a convoy of Iraqi vehicles was reported moving through the demarcation point of allied operations on Highway 8 about 50 kilometers west of Basra.

According to a pool reporter from the UPI, a platoon of the 24^th Infantry Division reported that the "massive Iraqi convoy … had just shot a couple of rockets at it." The Washington Post added that the convoy of 700 wheeled vehicles and 300 armored vehicles "opened fire in an effort to clear a path toward a causeway across the Euphrates." Lt. Chuck Ware, the battalion commander, received permission to return fire and the battalion received backup from Army artillery and 20 U.S. Cobra and Apache helicopters.

The ensuing fighting was one-sided and several thousand Iraqis (civilian and military) were killed in two hours. There were few Iraqi survivors.

A Washington Post report on March 18, 1991 said:

U.S. tanks were shooting Iraqi tanks off heavy equipment trailers trying to haul them to safety. Bradley fighting vehicles shattered truck after truck with 25mm cannon fire as Iraqi civilians and soldiers alike ran into the surrounding marshes.

Lt. Col. Ware said, "They shot first, we won big." Another U.S. officer stated, "We really waxed them."

This massacre took place after the cease-fire had been announced. At the time, it was thought that the convoy was not aware of its position; therefore it ran into the U.S. Army personnel. All the equipment was being transported on trucks — it was not in position to use in battle — so the U.S. forces had nothing to fear in terms of casualties. Some Iraqi soldiers were lying down on the vehicles and sleeping or obtaining a suntan.

When the post-cease-fire massacre occurred, the U.S. news agencies mentioned a "skirmish" between Iraqi and U.S. troops and said there were no U.S. casualties. They did not mention the slaughter.

The information made it appear that the unlucky Iraqis had taken a wrong turn somewhere and happened to run into a trigger-happy group of soldiers. The truth, however, is much more diabolical.

In May 2000, The New Yorker published an article by Seymour Hersh called "Overwhelming Force." Hersh spent years tracking down some of the participants in the slaughter, which was given the moniker the "Battle of Rumaila."

Instead of a wayward convoy of Iraqis who had the bad luck to shoot at U.S. forces, Hersh paints a picture of U.S. General Barry McCaffrey intentionally giving wrong location information to his superiors so he could concoct a battle with the hapless Iraqis who, in reality, were exactly where they were supposed to be according to the "safe" routes of return designated by the U.S.

Hersh explained:

McCaffrey’s insistence that the Iraqis attacked first was disputed in interviews for this article by some of his subordinates in the wartime headquarters of the 24^th Division, and also by soldiers and officers who were at the scene on March 2^nd. The accounts of these men, taken together, suggest that McCaffrey’s offensive, two days into a cease-fire, was not so much a counterattack provoked by enemy fire as a systematic destruction of Iraqis who were generally fulfilling the requirements of retreat; most of the Iraqi tanks traveled from the battlefield with their cannons reversed and secured, in a position known as travel-lock. According to these witnesses, the 24^th faced little determined Iraqi resistance at any point during the war or its aftermath; they also said that other senior officers exaggerated the extent of Iraqi resistance throughout the war.

The slaughter may have been forgotten and never discussed if not for an anonymous letter sent to the Pentagon that accused McCaffrey of a series of war crimes. The letter stated that McCaffrey’s division began the March 2^nd assault without Iraqi provocation and it included information only an insider would know. An investigation ensued, but, eventually, McCaffrey was exonerated.

Despite the prospect of an inquiry, McCaffrey openly bragged about his unit’s performance in the massacre. He told another general’s battalion that the 24^th Division had carried out:

"absolutely one of the most astounding goddamned operations ever seen in the history of military science … We were not fighting the Danish Armed Forces up here. There were a half million of those assholes that were extremely well-armed and equipped."

Some participants of the battle say that Iraq did not fire the first shot. Others maintain the Iraqis shot first, but only once. Authorities differed on the time between the supposed Iraqi shot and the beginning of the U.S. actions. Some say it was about 40 minutes, while others say the time lapse was close to two hours. Either way, it was evident that if Iraq did fire a shot, there was no follow-up or change of formation for the convoy. It still went forward with its equipment not in place for battle.

Soon, a call came asking for every available unit to come to rescue the U.S. troops. Sergeant Stuart Hirstein and his team rushed to the site. When Hirstein arrived, he said there was no attack and no imminent threat from retreating Iraqi tanks. He stated:

Some of the tanks were in travel formation, and their guns were not in any engaged position. The Iraqi crew members were sitting on the outside of their vehicles, catching rays. Nobody was on the machine guns.

Despite the intelligence that stated the Iraqis were no threat, and the doubts of other officers about an Iraqi attack, McCaffrey still wanted to go to battle. There were more discussions and Captain Bell, who had been involved with the talks before the U.S. "counterattack," believed that McCaffrey moved his brigades to the east of the original cease-fire line to provoke the Iraqis. He added that there is a huge difference between a round or two fired in panic and McCaffrey’s determination that the Iraqis were "attacking us." He added, that "is pure fabrication."

Hersh described the beginning of the hostilities that wiped out thousands:

The division log placed the time of McCaffrey’s first known battle order at five minutes after nine o’clock. According to Log Item 74. McCaffrey directed that the causeway "be targeted," thus blocking the basic escape route for the retreating forces. The division’s Apache helicopters were to "engage from south with intent of terminating engagement." Within moments, the assault was all-out. One company reported that it had engaged a force of between a hundred and two hundred Iraqi "dismounts." By ten o’clock, division headquarters had begun receiving reports of extensive damage to the Iraqi forces. One group of Apache helicopters reported in mid-morning, "Enemy not firing back, they are jumping in ditches to hide." Forty minutes later, according to another log item, McCaffrey ordered artillery to be "used in conjunction with personnel sweep to 'pound these guys’ and end the engagement."

The 24^th Division continued pounding the Iraqi column throughout the morning, until every vehicle moving toward the causeway — tank, truck, or automobile — was destroyed

McCaffrey was triumphant at battle’s end. "He was smiling like a proud father," John Brasfield told me …

… A couple of evenings later, Pierson was driving toward the causeway. "It must have been a nightmare along this road as the Apaches dispensed death from five kilometers away, one vehicle at a time. I stopped as a familiar smell wafted through the air … It was the smell of a cookout on a warm summer day, the smell of seared steak."

After the battle, a captured Iraqi tank commander asked again and again, "Why are you killing us? All we were doing was going home. Why are you killing us?"

Shortly before his troops flew back to Fort Stewart in the U.S., McCaffrey told them he had never been:

"more proud of American soldiers in my entire life as watching your attack on 2 March … It’s fascinating to watch what’s happening in our country. God, it’s the damnedest thing I ever saw in my life. It’s probably the single most unifying event that has happened in America since World War II … The upshot will be that, just like Vietnam had the tragic effect on our country for years, this one has brought back a new way of looking at ourselves."

McCaffrey weathered the storm and received his fourth star in 1994. In 1996, he retired from the Army and was appointed by the Clinton administration as the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, more commonly known as the U.S. Drug Czar.

Hersh’s article received much pre-publicity in 2000 and many people were anticipating the piece. Then, a couple of days before The New Yorker was to appear on the stands with the article, a press conference was called to address the issue. A Clinton spokesman took to the podium and criticized the article. He called it "old wine in a new bottle." In the space of about five minutes, an article that should have been read by the American public was dismissed as rubbish by the Clinton administration. The curious aspect of this denigration is that the article had not yet appeared. Normally, an administration tears apart something in the press after it is published. This fact alone should have piqued the interest of the public. However, the opposite occurred. Within a couple of days of its publishing, few spoke of the article again. It became a non-issue.

The entire article is a must-read for anyone who wants to know the truth about how the U.S. military conducted itself in Desert Storm. Not all the personnel were as bloodthirsty as McCaffrey, and Hersh interviewed participants who opposed the decision to slaughter thousands of Iraqis who could not fight back. It is available online at many websites. Punch in the name of the article on a search engine and you will be able to find the entire piece.

Marlin Fitzwater’s statement that retreating Iraqi troops would not be attacked was an outright lie, yet neither he nor the administration paid a price for the deceit. Up to 100,000 retreating Iraqis were slaughtered after he made the statement to the world. Among the retreating Iraqi soldiers were civilian men, women and children of various nationalities. Their deaths were, according to various U.S. military officers, the "spoils of war."

Those soldiers who did make it out of Kuwait were still not out of the woods. As soon as they approached Basra, they came under attack from Iranians who crossed the Iran-Iraq border during the U.S. bombing and their Iranian-backed Iraqi stooges. Much bloodshed on both sides occurred, creating more deaths for Iraqi troops. When the hostilities ended, the Iraqi army, by putting up a fierce resistance to the attempted coup, came out on top.

Marlin Fitzwater lied about not attacking retreating Iraqi troops and despite the horrendous circumstances they endured to get back to Iraq, their war was not over. Iran, with the blessing of the U.S., tried to finish off the Iraqi army. But, in the end, the heroic army kept Iraq intact by its brave fighting. Even this part of history has been re-written by the U.S. Instead of stating that Iraqi soldiers faced yet another ambush, the West put its propaganda machine in full gear and the perception of this incident has been attributed to Iraqi soldiers attacking and massacring Iraqi Shi’ite Muslims.

Thursday-Wednesday, January 20-26, 2011

A State of Permanent Human Bondage

The goal of Desert Storm was to destroy the country of Iraq under the guise of liberating Kuwait. In February 1991, during the height of U.S. bombing, former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark visited Iraq and reported his findings. At that time, few photos had come from Iraq showing the devastation. Most reporters left Iraq on the eve of the bombing campaign and spent their time in Saudi Arabia listening to the daily propaganda given by the U.S. military. They became so bored that they began to interview each other.

What Clark saw was not pretty. He stated:

The effect of the bombing, if continued, will be the destruction of much of the physical and economic base for life in Iraq. The purpose of the bombing can only be explained rationally as the destruction of Iraq as a viable state for a generation or more.

Clark’s message was not widely reported. After all, the U.S. version of events stated that the only reason for the aggression was to remove Iraqi soldiers from Kuwait. The lack of coverage of what was occurring in Iraq was convenient for the U.S. because it allowed the destruction of Iraq to continue with no world outcry.

After the bombing ceased, pictures began making their way to the outside world. When this information reached the U.S., the administration called it lies and propaganda. At other times, it accused Iraq of destroying its own institutions and blaming it on U.S. bombs. Once people from outside Iraq began to visit the country, the blatant U.S. lies were exposed. The following is a list of the numbers of facilities destroyed during the 42-day bombing campaign. It was compiled and published by the Iraqi Reconstruction Bureau:

·         Schools and scholastic facilities — 3960

·         Universities, labs, dormitories — 40

·         Health facilities (including hospitals, clinics, medical warehouses) — 421

·         Telephone operations, communication towers, etc. — 475

·         Bridges, buildings, housing complexes — 260

·         Warehouses, shopping centers, grain silos — 251

·         Churches and mosques — 159

·         Dams, pumping stations, agricultural facilities — 200

·         Petroleum facilities (including refineries) — 145

·         General services (shelters, sewage treatment plants, municipalities) — 830

·         Houses — 10,000 to 20,000

In April 1991, a fact-finding team from Greenpeace visited Iraq and nobody was prepared for the display of massive devastation. When Greenpeace issued its report, it said Iraq had been bombed back to a pre-industrial era. The report added, “New technology did not make the U.S. military better at preventing destruction, it just made it more efficient at destruction itself.”

The U.S. press ignored most of the reports by various groups that visited Iraq after Desert Storm. The few words reported, along with the absence of photos, assured a lack of public outcry condemning the slaughter.

The massacre should not have surprised those who followed incidents leading to Desert Storm. As early as September 1990, a high-up military person mapped the plans for the invasion. On September 16, 1990, General Dugan stated that the proposed plans for combat included the destruction of the Iraqi civilian economy and infrastructure. At that time, no one could envisage the U.S. attacking Iraq because the Iraqi soldiers were in Kuwait and the U.S. demanded their exit. Most people thought, if there was to be a war, it would be conducted in Kuwait, not Baghdad. General Dugan was immediately removed from office. The Bush administration negated Dugan’s claims and discredited him. In hindsight, we see that Dugan’s testimony was about the only truth we heard from the U.S. government or military at that time. He let the cat out of the bag, but government damage control quickly led the people to believe he made up the scenarios he predicted.

For the first week of Desert Storm, everyone seemed to be mesmerized by the “smart bombs” that were going down chimneys and smashing through the windows of weapons warehouses. When the odd person asked about civilians being hit, the standard response was, “We’re not targeting civilians.” What we were not told was that 93% of the bombs dropped were “dumb bombs” and the civilian infrastructure of Iraq was being destroyed. Only about 30 to 40% of the dumb bombs hit their targets. The others randomly created havoc by killing civilians and destroying Iraq’s cities and towns.

After Desert Storm, some military people admitted the real nature of the attacks. Air Force General Tony McPeak stated on March 20, 1991, “I’ve got photographic evidence of several where the pilot just acquired the wrong target.” When asked why that information had not come forth earlier, he added, “It ain’t my call. I made some recommendations about this; it got turned around, quite frankly.”

Those who questioned the U.S. government’s reports of only hitting military targets had their fears verified on January 22, 1991. Pictures of a destroyed baby milk factory in the region of Abu Ghraib were broadcast worldwide. Many people were aghast at the bombing of a civilian industry crucial for the existence of youngsters.

The Pentagon immediately went into high gear to try to dispel the protests of those who questioned such barbaric actions. The administration stated that it was a biological weapons plant. Colin Powell said”

It is not an infant formula factory, no more than the Rabta chemical plant in Libya made aspirin. It was a biological weapons facility, of that we are sure — and we have taken it out.

The administration came up with the excuse that “Baby Milk Factory” signs around the plant were written in English and Arabic and they had just been mounted after the bombing to try to make people think it was a baby formula factory. The American public bought the excuse.

The public never researched to discover that many signs in Iraq included both English and Arabic versions because of the substantial English-speaking population who worked in Iraq prior to Desert Storm. The sign at the baby milk factory had been in place for several years prior to its bombing. Peter Arnett of CNN stated after Desert Storm that the same factory and sign were evident in a documentary that CNN produced in the late 1980s.

Nestlé of Switzerland is a leading producer of infant foods. A spokesman for the company said, “We know this was a state-built infant formula plant.” Company officials said they had regularly observed its construction in the past, “because we like to be aware of the competition.”

U.S. audiences rarely heard or saw what other countries reported concerning Desert Storm. A British TV show, “Panorama,” was broadcast on March 25, 1991 which included an interview with General Leonard Perroots, a consultant to U.S. intelligence in Desert Storm. He addressed the bombing of the baby milk factory and he quickly put the matter to rest as he said, “We made a mistake.”

The bombing of the baby milk factory put the world on alert that the information broadcast at the daily military briefings was untruthful. At that time, those who opposed Desert Storm were shocked at the widespread destruction in Iraq. They wondered how the U.S. public, which usually would have treated such barbaric designs with disdain, had acquiesced to cheering such actions. The answer lies in the demonizing of Iraq and its president, Saddam Hussein.

In George Bush’s Thanksgiving speech to U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia in 1990, he stated:

Every day that passes brings Saddam one step closer to realizing his goal of a nuclear weapons arsenal, and that’s why more and more your mission is marked by a real sense of urgency. You know, no one knows exactly who they may be aimed at down the road, but we know this for sure, he’s never possessed a weapon he didn’t use.

At the time of his speech, Bush knew that Iraq was at least five years away from developing its first crude atomic weapon, yet he made it sound as though Iraq was on the verge of obtaining a comprehensive nuclear arsenal. In further speeches, he suggested that in six months, Iraq would be a nuclear threat to the world. The myth of an Iraqi nuclear warehouse was a prime excuse for Bush II invading Iraq in 2003. And, to this day, many U.S. citizens believe Iraq possessed nuclear weapons.

Even after the bombing of the baby milk factory, the U.S. denied bombing civilians or buildings used in civilian industries. When the Iraqi government stated that a village or suburb was hit, the U.S. government would say the Iraqis weren’t telling the truth. Because of the demonizing of Iraq, most Americans thought all Iraqi information consisted of lies.

On January 31, an independent source announced that the U.S. was bombing civilians. The Jordanian Foreign Ministry stated that coalition planes had bombed oil trucks and civilians moving along the highway from Iraq to Jordan. Again, the U.S. denied the allegations, but some eyes were being opened.

In Iran, reports were made stating that the bombing was so intense that the ground in Iran was shaking. On February 5, 1991, an official in Basra described “a hellish nightmare” of fires and smoke so dense that eyewitnesses say the sun had not been clearly visible for days at a time; that the bombing was leveling entire city blocks; and that there were bomb craters the size of football fields and an untold number of casualties.

On February 7, the military still denied that civilians were being targeted. When asked about the allegations, General Richard Neal told the press, “It’s a target-rich environment and there’s plenty of other targets we can attack.”

While Neal was making his statement, Ramsey Clark was traveling throughout Iraq but his assessment differed greatly from that of the general. In describing the reality in Iraq, Clark stated:

Over the 2,000 miles of highway, roads and streets we traveled, we saw scores, probably several hundred, destroyed vehicles. There were oil tank trucks, tractor trailers, lorries, pickup trucks, a public bus, a mini bus, a taxi cab and many private cars destroyed by aerial bombardments and strafing. We found no evidence of military equipment or supplies in the vehicles.

Along the roads, we saw several oil refinery fires and numerous gasoline stations destroyed. One road-repair camp had been bombed on the road to Amman (Jordan). As with the city streets in residential and commercial areas where we witnessed damage, we did not see a single damaged or destroyed military vehicle, tank, armored car, personnel carrier or other military equipment, or evidence of any having been removed.

Basra was probably the hardest-hit city during Desert Storm. There was evidence of weapons that are normally used against military personnel having been deployed in civilian areas of Basra: cluster bombs. Clark saw this evidence and reported:

Small, anti-personnel bombs were alleged to have fallen here (Basra) and we saw what appeared to be one that did not explode imbedded in the rubble. We were shown the shell of a “mother” bomb which carries the small fragmentation bombs.

When he left Iraq in February 1991, Clark gave an overview of the situation:

United States annual military expenditures alone are four times the gross national product of Iraq. The use of highly-sophisticated military technology with mass destructive power against an essentially defenseless civilian population of a poor nation is one of the greatest tragedies of our times.

A few days after Clark left Iraq, an incident occurred that astonished the world. On February 13, a pair of Stealth F-117 bombers dropped two 2,000-pound laser-guided bombs on a concrete building in the Amiryah section of suburban Baghdad. The case-hardened bombs were directed to penetrate the steel reinforced roof and detonate inside. It was a civilian bomb shelter.

The reports of the number of civilians killed in the building — more than half were children — ranged from 400 to more than 1,000. Because the bodies were so badly burned and melted, no one will ever know the exact total.

The U.S. administration first proclaimed that the target was an Iraqi command-and-control post and the dead were Iraqi military personnel. The cameras eventually showed charred bodies of women and children, so the U.S. story had to be revised. The administration then said that the building was a military target in which Saddam Hussein placed civilians to protect the military personnel. Dick Cheney, then the U.S. Secretary of Defense, stated, “Saddam might be resorting to a practice of deliberately placing civilians in harm’s way.”

The U.S. government scrambled to try to explain the massacre of so many people inside a civilian bomb shelter. General Neal stated the government’s case as he said, “From a personal point of view, I’m outraged that civilians might have been placed in harm’s way, and I blame the Iraqi leadership for that.” Unfortunately, many Americans believed Neal’s twisted excuse of blaming the Iraqi leadership for the incineration of hundreds of people by deadly superbombs.

Within a few hours, the truth emerged. The Amiryah bomb shelter was built for civilian defense during the Iran-Iraq War. The engineer who designed it appeared on television and told the world there was no way it could be a military asset.

After the lies were put to rest, it became evident that the U.S. had either mistaken the target as a military venue, or it had deliberately destroyed it knowing it was a bomb shelter. Since February 14, 1991, the subject of the bombing of the Amiryah bomb shelter has been left unspoken in the U.S.

Those inside the bomb shelter died horrific deaths. First, a 2,000-pound bomb crashed through the shelter, creating a massive tunnel in which the second 2,000-pound projectile entered. Then, both exploded, leaving a huge hole. Those who died saw the first bomb and had a few seconds of life left before the second burrowed its way into the shelter and discharged.

Despite the ensuing international outcry about the destruction of the Amiryah shelter, the U.S. did not cut back on the bombing. Actually, the bombing of the Iraqi infrastructure increased. According to Greenpeace in a report called On Impact::

Despite numerous statements of U.S. military leaders that the Iraqi army had been defeated, as well as some confidence that contact between Baghdad and the front in the south had been severed, communications targets, mostly serving civilian functions, continued to be struck and re-struck to the end. If fact, according to Air Force Times, during the final ground phase, “Baghdad was targeted for some of the heaviest bombardments since January 17.”

The cease-fire did not solve all the problems for the civilians of Iraq. Shortly after, George Bush called for the Iraqi people to “take matters into their own hands” in ridding Iraq of its government. For the next few weeks, some Shi’ites in the south, heavily aided and infiltrated by Iranians, wreaked havoc, while certain Kurdish factions started an insurrection in the north of Iraq. There was bloody fighting and at one time, the Shi’ite and Kurdish elements controlled 16 of Iraq’s 18 provinces. Both movements eventually were brought under control by the Iraqi government. Not content with destroying Iraq by bombing it back to a “pre-industrial era,” Bush prompted even more destruction by urging factions within Iraq to overthrow the government. He promised both groups military assistance from the U.S., but none came.

In April 1991, the outside world saw Iraq for the first time since it had been destroyed by U.S. bombs and missiles. The nightmarish pictures started to appear. They showed a country that was bombed so heavily that the most common sites were craters and twisted, melted and devastated structures.

Ramsey Clark made another trip to Iraq to document the devastation. Once there, he noticed an ongoing operation that was meant to terrorize the population:

On our second night there, and several other times, at about 2:30 a.m., U.S. jets flew over the city (Baghdad), deliberately creating an enormous sonic boom that sounded as if the bombing had started again. The next morning, people would describe how their children had awakened in terror.

Clark chronicled the civilian industries that were demolished during the bombing of Iraq:

Twenty minutes outside the city (Baghdad), in Al Taji, we saw the country’s largest frozen meat storage and distribution center; one of two main centers for the entire country, which also included a laboratory for testing meat quality. It had been completely obliterated by the bombing. The center held 14,000 tons of frozen meat. The plant had been bombed three times, at 8:00 a.m., 3:00 p.m., and 8:00 p.m., and workers inside the plant had been killed.

All over Iraq, Clark saw the same mindless destruction. In Babylon, he visited a textile weaving plant that was totally destroyed. The plant was bombed at 3:00 in the afternoon and two women were killed working at their stations. According to the plant manager, Mr. Hassan, the factory was built by an Italian company and the new structure next door, containing no equipment, was untouched.

Dr. Al Qaysi, an Iraqi medical official, put everything in perspective when he stated:

No home remained untouched, no family unharmed, if not through death in the war, through malnutrition, disease, or new-found poverty. This is a return to colonialism. The U.S. is asking for terms like another Treaty of Versailles. Iraq is dependent on the outside world to repair its infrastructure and I fear Iraq will be in a state of permanent human bondage.

The Iraqi Minister of Trade, Mohammed Mahdi Saleh, realized the enormity of the task of trying to rebuild Iraq, particularly with the encompassing trade embargo in place. Despite the U.S. administration maintaining that Iraq was able to import humanitarian goods, there was virtually no way to obtain food, medicine, and parts to repair destroyed machinery. Saleh stated, “If it was possible, the Bush administration would have prevented the air from coming in.”

Tuesday-Sunday, November 23-28, 2010

ONCE UPON A TIME … 

Once upon a time, Iraq had the finest education system in the Arab world. 

Once upon a time, Iraq exported its expertise in education to many countries. 

Once upon a time, Iraq was considered by the UN “illiteracy free.”

Once upon a time, Iraq led the Arab world in scientific development. 

Once upon a time, Iraq had the most modern and efficient highway system and public transport facilities in the Middle East. 

Once upon a time, Iraqi women could dress however they desired: in sweat shirts and jeans, in mini-skirts, with stylish fashion, or, if they preferred, with a veil. 

Once upon a time, the Iraqi public listened to rock and heavy metal music. Once upon a time, professional and amateur sports flourished in Iraq. 

Once upon a time, the arts (of all kinds) were visible all over Iraq. Once upon a time, Iraqi homosexuals were not condemned to death because of their sexual preferences. 

Once upon a time, it was a criminal offense to kill Christians or Palestinians. The term used for any crime of this nature was “murder.” 

Once upon a time, world experts on archaeology and antiquities were welcome to Iraq in an effort to discover the history of the country and then preserve it. Once upon a time, veterans of the Iran-Iraq War were highly revered by the Iraqi government and public. 

Once upon a time, 55% of the Iraqi work force consisted of females. Once upon a time, females held important positions in the government, business and the fields of engineering and science. 

Once upon a time, foreign workers were welcome in Iraq. They provided many services in the areas of agriculture and the construction of the Iraqi infrastructure. 

Once upon a time, any scholar of Arab history was welcome in Iraq as a guest of the government. They were allowed unlimited access to historical documents so they could enhance the writing of Arab culture and share books and articles with the world. 

Once upon a time, Baghdad was called “The Paris of the Middle East.” Once upon a time, Baghdad had many parks and recreational areas that families safely used. 

Once upon a time, the citizens of Iraq were called Iraqis, not Shia or Sunni or Turkomen or Kurds or Chaldeans or any other designation. 

Once upon a time, Iraq had no depleted uranium that was responsible for the deaths and birth defects of thousands of children. 

Once upon a time, Iraq’s drinking water was safe. 

Once upon a time, diseases such as hoof-and-mouth disease and malnutrition had been eradicated from Iraq. 

Once upon a time, Iraqis did not lock the doors to their houses and left them wide open. 

Once upon a time, Baghdad nightlife was vibrant with street performers and the smell of mouth-watering food, not the odor of blood and death. 
\
Once upon a time, Iraqi citizens could safely walk the streets with no thoughts of harm occurring. 

Once upon a time, Iraqi children were not obliged to turn to prostitution to earn enough money for their families to buy food. 

Once upon a time, a gallon of gasoline cost less than one cent in Iraq and there were no long lines at petrol stations. 

Once upon a time, electricity was available 24 hours a day in Iraq. Once upon a time, Iraqis were not worried about poisoning themselves when they drank water from their taps. 

Once upon a time, Iraq led the Arab world in technology. 

Once upon a time, Baghdad’s streets were clean, not strewn with garbage and human bodies. 

Once upon a time, Iraq had a functioning government that addressed the needs of the citizenry of Iraq. 

Once upon a time, Iraq was great. 

Once upon a time is the opening phrase of many fairy tales. In the case of Iraq, once upon a time was once true. For today’s young Iraqis, the facts are hidden from them and they may consider them to be fairy tales because their Iraq differs greatly from the one depicted here.

In our first year in London, we learned much. We saw scenes of happiness among the people. It was so different for us to see the morning crowd of kids walking to their schools. Many had school uniforms and they all looked quite happy, despite their having to spend the next few hours in a classroom. Scenes like this are rare in the U.S. Most kids go to school by bus or are driven by relatives or friends. We never saw the swarms of kids walking to school that London produced.

The great public transportation system was another highlight. There was no place in London where one was not within walking distance of a bus stop, train station, or underground station. All the various methods of transportation were linked so that one could go to any area of London and not be far from his/her destination.

After a year, the culture shock had worn off and my wife and I had new British friends. I became involved in baseball and basketball promotion, so I visited many areas of Greater London. During these travels, I noticed the uniqueness of areas that was lacking in the U.S. Sure, many U.S. cities have a Chinatown or another area that is inhabited by people who originated from countries outside the U.S. But, they were not as deeply rooted as the various parts of London. Plus, I once read that there are 50 distinct accents of the English language in London alone. After a while, one can almost tell where a person lives and his/her place in the class structure of Britain just by the accent used.

One thing that was very interesting is the affinity that Londoners had for their city, regardless of their politics, religion or lack of, class, and style of dress. If the English national football team was playing at Wembley Stadium, you could always count on a sellout crowd of close to 100,000 people. Working class mingled with the upper class. They looked different from each other and surely cast their ballots for different candidates in elections, but they cheered for the same team.

In 1947, Hubert Gregg, from the Islington area of London composed the song, "Maybe It’s Because I’m a Londoner." It quickly became an anthem. During my stay in London, I must have heard the song hundreds of times. You hear it in pubs, schools, clubs, anywhere one can break out in song. And, whether working class, middle class, or upper class, Brits always took advantage of making an excuse to sing the song. The lyrics are short and poignant. Only the people singing it can choose how many times they want to repeat the verses:

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner
That I love London so
Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner
That I think of her wherever I go

I get a funny feeling inside of me
When walking up and down
Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner
That I love London Town

I moved from London to The Netherlands in September 1980 to pursue a baseball coaching career in the Dutch major league. I spent two years in The Netherlands and became burned out on baseball. Since the age of eight, I was addicted. Finally, after 26 years, I kicked the habit.

My next move was to San Diego in the U.S. Because of changing countries three times in a few years, it took a little while for me to re-gain my adoration for London. But, today I consider the six years I lived there to be the finest of my life in many ways. I learned much and began to look at the world through different eyes. When I returned to the U.S., I realized that my new view of the world did not necessarily fit in with the citizenry. Most U.S. citizens have never traveled outside their own country and they would tell me that they were proud of that fact. To them, living in another country was tantamount to being a traitor.

So, where is all this talk of London taking me? I do have a point to make.

A few days ago, the website www.uruknet.info ran a piece that showed dozens of pictures of Baghdad prior to the March 2003 invasion. I saw all the kids going to school with smiles on their faces. I saw street vendors. I saw buildings that were hundreds of years old and I saw modern buildings. I saw parks. And, I saw a great diversity of clothing worn by the Baghdad residents. I saw London all over again. The signs were in a different language and the clothing styles varied from those of Londoners. But, I saw Baghdad as a special city: one that the people adored, regardless of background.

Today’s Baghdad is far different. A couple of days ago, a major study called Baghdad the most violent city in the world. That is no designation to be proud of. Just a couple of decades ago, Western press called Baghdad the "Paris of the Middle East." Now, it’s nothing more than a sewage-ridden city with people begging for water and food. They are imprisoned behind concrete walls that separate neighborhoods. If they wear the wrong clothes, they may be shot. In 2006, the entire Iraqi national tennis team was shot to death on a street in Baghdad for wearing shorts. The once Paris of the Middle East is now the shithole of the world. Despite all this, the quisling government in the Green Zone and the U.S. administration are speaking of the great success of the new "democratic Iraq." Unfortunately, the brain-dead public of the U.S. has been manipulated enough to believe it. If you take a look at some obese person, swilling his beer while watching his favorite football team on TV, all the time farting and bragging about how loud he can perform the feat, he will tell you about the great successes in Iraq.

Let’s turn the situation around and compare the fate of Baghdad and if a similar destruction of London occurred. The new London would have many warning signs erected in a language they did not understand. Each unique section would be walled off from the rest of London. If a person in Chelsea wanted to visit a relative in nearby Richmond, it would take all day just to make the trip, all the time having the traveler’s eyes scanned to see if his/her irises matched those on record of the authorities. This few-mile journey would include several checkpoints.

Wembley Stadium would be in ruins. The national English football team would be massacred because they wore shorts. Southall, an area populated by many Indians and Pakistanis would be shut completely off from the rest of London. No longer would the vendors be able to show their goods on the street and no longer would a visitor be able to smell the fragrance of the smells coming from the fruit or spice stands erected on the street. Plus, all Hindus, or Muslims would be terrified to leave their houses because the new rulers would have designated England to be an official country of one religion only.

Earl’s Court, an area in which many gays live and socialize would be leveled and the population would be hunted down and killed for its sexual orientation.

The River Thames would be so polluted that health of people living nearby would be threatened. Big Ben would be a pile of rubble. Pubs would be shut down and anyone seen drinking alcohol would be subject to torture or death.

In 1978, Jeff Wayne released an album called "War of the Worlds." It was based on the same story broadcast in the U.S. in 1938 in which Martians invade Earth and destroy everything in their way. Jeff Wayne’s version is about London, however, not New Jersey, the location mentioned in the first War of the Worlds broadcast. The album is a mixture of narration, music, and illustrations. The destruction of the Houses of Parliament is depicted, as well as the blowing up of all the bridges that cross the River Thames. People have no food and they panic. Much of Jeff Wayne’s rendition is eerily similar to the March 2003 invasion and ensuing destruction of Baghdad by Western forces. There sre fire and explosions. The public panics and has no where to escape. I would recommend anyone who has not heard Jeff Wayne’s War of the Worlds to obtain at least some of the portions of the production and listen to how London was ravaged and burnt just the way Baghdad was. However, Jeff Wayne’s War of the Worlds is fiction. Baghdad’s destruction is not.

London is still London. Baghdad is no longer Baghdad. I only wish British people, or anyone who has visited London, put themselves in the shoes of the people of Baghdad today. They would not be able to envision such a destroyed and walled London. The sad part of all this is that it was a Brit, living in London at the time, Tony Blair, who so readily offered military activity to destroy Baghdad. And, he was proud of his actions, according to recent statements by him.

The people like Blair, Bush and all those politicians who supported the invasion of Iraq are nothing better than filth. Yet they were the ones who called for Baghdad’s demise. While Iraqis are scrambling for a liter of non-toxic drinking water, the architects of the March 2003 invasion are bragging about their accomplishments over cocktails and some phony party held in honor of the great strength of the U.S.

It is amazing how blind most of the human race is.

First, we had the current faux president of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki. I don’t have to write much about him because most people are aware of his ludicrous and deadly actions as "Butcher-in-Charge" who is stationed in the Green Zone of Baghdad. If he were to greet the people, in the same manner of his predecessor, President Saddam Hussein, his body parts would be strewn all over Iraq. It would be no stretch of the imagination to assume he is a major stockholder in the U.S. firm Black and Decker, one of the world’s largest manufacturers of drills. However, the U.S. company markets their drills to do-it-yourself handymen to make improvements on their houses. Al-Maliki used the drills to test how long a human being could live while having his head drilled.

His main opponent was Ayad Allawi, a has-been former "prime minister" of Iraq. His tenure was short-lived. The Iraqi people did not take him seriously. In an act meant to outdo al-Maliki and his ilk, Allawi once lined six young men, who were arrested and not charged with any crime, against a wall and shot them in the head with his revolver.

The Iraqi people had no real choice in the elections. It was Murderer #1 versus Murderer #2. Despite their so-called differences, both shared a similar past: neither had lived in Iraq for decades prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Both praised the U.S. invasion and, recently, Allawi went out of his way to profusely thank the U.S. for the losses it suffered while "freeing" Iraq.

Many people are well aware of al-Maliki’s past few years of murderous activities. Few, however, realize that in the 1990s, Allawi was the force behind the killing of more than 100 innocent Iraqi civilians at various venues, such as bus stops and cinemas. The word "terrorist" is used in broad terms by various groups and causes. Allawi’s actions qualify him to be a terrorist no matter what definition is used.

At a press conference in November 2001, George Bush stated:

A coalition partner must do more than just express sympathy. A coalition partner must perform. All nations must do something. It’s important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity. You’re either with us or against us in the fight against terror.

Let’s take a look at a terrorist who eventually became Iraq’s prime minister. On May 28, 2004, when the U.S. government announced that Ayad Allawi would become Iraq’s interim prime minister, most people asked, "Who?" Before this time, he was unknown to the U.S. public

Ayad Allawi was an Iraqi exile living in London. When he first moved to London, he was a member of Iraq’s Ba’ath Party. Shortly after, he changed sides and sold his services to the British spy agency MI6. Later on, he collaborated with the CIA as well.

In the mid-1990s, the Clinton administration had placed the assassination of Saddam Hussein at the top of its agenda, albeit in a covert manner. The plan was for Iraqi dissidents to meet in the north of Iraq (at the time under the protection of U.S. forces) and march to Baghdad. The U.S. was to supply air power and weapons.

Allawi was the man for the job. He was in charge of a U.S.-sponsored Iraqi expatriate group called the Iraqi National Accord (INA). The first part of the operation was to create havoc in Baghdad. For months in 1995, INA agents blew up bus stops, cinemas and stores in Baghdad. At least 150 civilians were killed and many more injured.

Syndicated columnist Eric Margolis of the Toronto Sun was one of the few journalists who wrote about the plan. In his column, "The Bay of Camels," of August 25, 1997, he stated, "Terrorism is bad, it seems, when used against Americans or Israelis, but fine when used against Iraqis."

The title of Margolis’ column was a mockery of the "Bay of Pigs" invasion by Cuban dissidents backed by the U.S. that turned into an embarrassing defeat. The Iraqi debacle in 1996 had similar implications, yet gained little publicity.

The Iraqis discovered who was behind the terrorist attacks and arrested INA agents in Baghdad. In addition, Iraqi special agents had already infiltrated the would-be insurgents. The scheduled invasion was doomed before it began. Infiltration by Iraqi government assets, along with a decision by the U.S. not to supply air cover, made it a non-starter.

At the time, a civil war was raging in the north of Iraq between the two largest Kurdish factions. One of their leaders, Massoud Barzani, asked Saddam Hussein for help in putting down his rivals. The payoff for Iraq was that Barzani alerted the Iraqis to the huge CIA operation in Irbil, in the north of Iraq. Iraqi troops destroyed the CIA program and helped Barzani take over Irbil, then they returned to Baghdad.

After the failed coup, Allawi was protected by the U.S. and he fled to England, although he still was a major behind-the-scenes player involved in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Many know of the escapades of Ahmed Chalabi and his group, the INC, but Allawi was just as important to the U.S. and he continued his work for the CIA after the failed strategy to get rid of Saddam.

On November 13, 2004, The Spectator, a British publication, ran a feature by Andrew Gilligan called "The Strongman of Baghdad." According to the article:

Unlike his main rival in Iraqi exile politics, the banker Ahmed Chalabi, he (Allawi) was low-key and persuasive, hinting at highly placed contacts inside the regime who were ready to turn the West’s way. Not for the last time, Ayad Allawi was telling the British, and later the U.S. government exactly what they wanted to hear, and the CIA millions started to pour in.

The INA’s most controversial operation during this period was a campaign of what can only be termed terrorism against civilians. In 1994 and 1995, a series of bombings at cinemas, mosques and other places in Baghdad claimed up to 100 civilian lives …

In 1996, with massive CIA backing, Mr. Allawi finally got to mount his coup. It was a complete fiasco, not entirely helped by his decision to announce the supposedly top-secret operation to the Washington Post. Even before this, Saddam’s secret police had secretly seized the sophisticated encrypted satphone sent into Iraq to communicate with the coup plotters and were using it to feed disinformation to the CIA. Once the coup had been crushed and all the plotters arrested, the special line came to life one last time. It was the Iraqis, kindly ringing up the CIA to let them know it was all over.

The "ringing up the CIA" to which Gilligan refers consisted of an Iraqi officer calling a CIA agent in Amman, Jordan, who was anxiously awaiting word of how the operation was progressing. When the CIA operative answered, the Iraqi officer said, "Gotcha!"

Allawi continued to rake in the revenues from the British and American intelligence agencies. He, like Chalabi, continued to turn out the most outrageous allegations about Saddam Hussein and Iraq. The more preposterous, the better. Gilligan added:

Undaunted, Mr. Allawi kept up his contacts (and income) with the spooks and an even thirstier less discriminating audience, the British press. At top-secret meetings in London hotels, murmured conversations with selected extra-gullible hacks would produce exciting headlines in top right-wing newspapers. It was the INA, in July 2000, which fed the Sunday Telegraph the sensational scoop that Saddam had deployed crack "Mata Hari" teams of killer belly-dancers to Britain to assassinate his political opponents, a story which continues to be remembered with tears of real joy whenever Iraq-watching journalists gather to reminisce.

Allawi’s acts of terrorism, lying, and bilking the U.S. and Britain of millions of dollars were well-rewarded: he was appointed Iraq’s prime minister. As the leader of a quisling government, Allawi had virtually no support and the people of Iraq did not respect him. Even Saddam Hussein’s opponents who lived in Iraq their whole lives despised Allawi.

The U.S. spent millions of dollars listening to advice on Iraq, but those they asked for information always gave them the wrong information. Not one penny was spent on listening to the opinion of Iraqis in Iraq, not exiles living in luxury who had no idea of Iraqi attitudes. Gilligan summed it up:

The trouble, you see, with wafting in a British passport-holder from Wimbledon as your chosen leader is that he has no genuine political capital in Iraq to spend, no popular support to withstand the inevitable crises.

Let’s go back to the 1996 "Bay of Camels" debacle and look at how then President Bill Clinton handled the affair. He had to take some military action against Iraq, yet he could not admit that the U.S. ran the world’s largest CIA operation in Irbil and that it had been completely knocked out.

On September 3, 1996, Clinton told the press:

Three days ago, despite clear warnings from the United States and the international community, Iraqi forces attacked and seized the Kurdish-controlled city of Irbil in northern Iraq. The limited withdrawals announced by Iraq do not change the reality. Saddam Hussein’s army today controls Irbil and Iraqi units remain deployed for further attacks.

These acts demand a strong response and they have received one. Earlier today, I ordered American forces to strike Iraq. Our missiles sent the following message to Saddam Hussein: when you abuse your own people or threaten your neighbors you must pay a price.

There was not one word about the CIA operation or that the Iraqi army defended against an assassination attempt. The most curious aspect of Clinton’s explanation was the area in which the missiles were sent. If Iraqi troops were "abusing" the Iraqi people in Irbil in the north of Iraq, logic would say that a military response would have been conducted in the north. But, Clinton added:

First, we are expanding the no-fly zone in southern Iraq. This will deny Saddam control of Iraqi airspace from the Kuwaiti border to the southern suburbs of Baghdad and significantly restrict Iraq's ability to conduct offensive operations in the region. Second, to protect the safety of our aircraft enforcing this no-fly zone, our cruise missiles struck Saddam’s air defense capabilities in southern Iraq.

Iraq did not conduct "offensive operations" in the south. It was in the north. Even a few reporters asked why the south of Iraq was whacked when the Iraqi troops were in the north. Clinton gave a feeble excuse and the press bought it.

The reason Clinton sent any cruise missiles was because of the outcry from Congress to retaliate, but, he could not tell the truth. At the time, the press had no information about the huge CIA operation that had been destroyed.

The operation was not un-noticed by Congress. Most members knew of the CIA operation, but were tight-lipped. After the fiasco, the Democrats tried to downplay the event, while the Republicans went for the jugular.

A document from the House Republican Policy Committee, called "U.S. Intelligence Debacle Worst Since the Bay of Pigs," was released on October 8, 1996. The report was primarily an attack on Bill Clinton’s "weakness" on Iraq, but, much information was included of which the U.S. public was unaware. According to the report:

In early 1996, President Clinton signed a secret directive authorizing a covert CIA operation to unseat Saddam Hussein. He and his CIA director, John M. Deutch, pinned their hopes on a cadre of Kurdish and Iraqi agents operating inside Iraq with undercover U.S. support. In America’s largest covert operation since the successful CIA campaign against the Soviets in Afghanistan, Deutch personally promised the effort would succeed "within a year."

But the Clinton-Deutch scheme in Iraq began to come apart in June 1996.

First, the CIA attempt to infiltrate the Republican Guard was uncovered. Reminiscent of the "exploding cigar" fiascoes targeting Fidel Castro in the early 1960s, one of the missions that Clinton approved was to plant a small bomb in one of Saddam Hussein’s palaces. It went off, but not while Saddam Hussein was there. The fact that the bomb at least detonated was the only success of the infiltration. Through late June and early July 1996, Iraqi security forces systematically exposed every one of the U.S.-backed officers and agents in the ranks of the Republican Guard …

… With hundreds of American-supported Kurds and Iraqis dead or imprisoned, Bill Clinton dishonestly declared victory before a credulous American public who did not know (and could not have known) what actually happened in Iraq.

Though it was the Republicans who brought out the real facts about the debacle in Irbil, they did not do so for altruistic reasons or to enlighten the U.S. public about situations in Iraq. The report was a partisan swipe at a Democrat president. In fact, before the situation turned sour, most Republicans supported the idea of trying to have Saddam Hussein overthrown from within.

The main U.S. asset, Allawi, was quickly transported out of Iraq with most of the U.S. agents. The Iraqi stooges, who thought they were being well-protected, were left defenseless against the Iraqi troops and they paid a hefty price.

Allawi is in the major leagues of terrorists. But, the U.S. has protected him and Allawi now splits his time between an expensive, well-guarded house in Jordan, and another residence in London. Some working class Moslem may get arrested in his house in the U.S. and accused of being a terrorist because of his reading material, but one of the world’s most notorious terrorists is protected by the same government that said there will be no safe haven for any terrorist in the world

THE INTEGRITY OF SADDAM HUSSEIN

It seems like an eternity since Iraq was invaded and destroyed in 2003. It’s hard to believe that less than seven years ago, Iraq was a functioning country, even though it was under an encompassing embargo. Nine months after the invasion, Saddam Hussein was kidnapped by U.S. forces and three years later, he was hanged by a bunch of masked cowards. This three-year period gave a chance for the world to see the real Saddam Hussein: a man of integrity who would not abandon his cause of Iraqi independence.

In November 2006, everyone heard the verdict that Saddam Hussein will be hanged. And, many people read the obligatory remarks from the stooge Iraqi government and the U.S. and U.K. governments. I will not get involved with these idiotic statements. All those who praised the decision did not take into consideration that the verdict would make Iraq a much more deadly place that it already was.

I will talk about Saddam Hussein, the man. This is not a history of his regime, but a view of him and his steadfastness after April 9, 2003.

To me, it is hard to conceive how a man of his age endured more than a lifetime of hardship, torture and personal bereavement in less than four years without losing his mental faculties or selling out to his opponents.

In July 2003, Saddam Hussein saw photos of his two dead sons on television. Their bodies were ridden with bullet holes. His 14-year-old grandson was killed along with his sons in the hours-long attack on a house by hundreds of U.S. military personnel. The U.S. government probably considered it to be in bad taste to exhibit the grandson’s body on television.

In December 2003, Saddam was kidnapped by U.S. forces. However, he was not found in a "spider hole" as the commonly-accepted myth states. He was surrounded in a friend’s house by U.S. Marines. For a while, he fought it out with the Marines, but finally surrendered because he and his friend were well-outnumbered.

For the next two days, Saddam was drugged and tortured. Then, the U.S. administration showed a disheveled Saddam to the world in an attempt to denigrate him. Although he had been captured two days earlier in a house, the administration made it appear that the pictures they showed of Saddam were taken on the spot of his apprehending. The attempt at degradation backfired. Within minutes of the pictures being shown in Iraq, thousands took to the streets in pro-Saddam demonstrations.

For the next few months, he was not allowed to see a lawyer. In that time, he was tortured and questioned. Also, he was offered deals by the U.S. that would get him an "out of jail free" pass if he cooperated. He never capitulated to their whims.

Saddam Hussein was not allowed to see his family. Most of his correspondence to them was either not delivered, or highly censored. By now, most humans would be willing to say anything their captors desired.

One day, I was talking to my friend Frank Morrow who produced the finest political show ever on U.S. television: Alternative Views. We discussed how Manuel Noriega collapsed in a few days in U.S. incarceration and spilled his guts. Frank said to me, "Saddam is made of sterner stuff." He could not have been more accurate.

On his first day in court, Saddam was a few minutes late. The judge asked him why he was not on time and Saddam told him that the elevators of the building were not working. The judge then said he would ask the Americans to try to fix the faulty lifts. Saddam looked the judge in the eye and said, "Don’t ask them. You tell them. You are an Iraqi." The judge was silent. The accused prisoner had to give him a lesson in citizenship.

We have read page-after-page of the illegality of Saddam’s trials. The anomalies are far too many to address in this column. However, with each preposterous turn, Saddam kept his ground and never capitulated to the court.

For months, every conceivable scenario emerged: Saddam was dragged out of court; his lawyers were kicked out of court; defense witnesses were tortured by the court; the judge destroyed a videotape that clearly showed the head prosecutor was lying; and Saddam and a few of his comrades went on hunger strikes.

Still, he showed up in court with the wit and physical appearance of a man decades younger. All the atrocities committed against him never made him appear to be desperate and he never showed signs of caving in.

Headlines of the day portrayed outrage from various groups, individuals and governments over the verdict. Many tried to get the U.N. to intervene in the fiasco, but the chances of justice were slim to none.

I read many quotes from Saddam’s foes and friends after the verdict. Two stick out. The most preposterous comes from the traitor Nouri al-Maliki, the so-called Iraqi prime minister:

This ruler has committed the most horrible crimes. He executed the best scientists, academics and thinkers.

The statement is so incredible that most people who read it will believe it. Since Maliki’s appointment, we read about hundreds of professors, scientists and doctors being killed in Iraq by agents of the Malaki government. During Saddam’s time, these professionals flourished and were the pride of Iraq. Malaki has now added them to the long list of fictitious victims of Saddam Hussein’s rule.

Here’s a very courageous quote from Haitham, a 42-year-old resident of Mosul:

I feel sad for Saddam, we have wronged him. We did not support him but now, after what we have seen, what has happened since he was toppled, it has become clear to us that he was the best man in the world.

Shortly after the verdict, I received a message from someone who is knowledgeable about occurrences on the ground in Iraq. It stated:

We learned that demonstrations are all over Iraq in protest of the sentence.

In Baghdad, American soldiers are busy painting over the slogans that people wrote on the walls and in intersections.

I am sending you some pictures. These are only a sample of what is going on.

Of course, the U.S. press did show any of these photos.

In the U.S., we have the term "family values" shoved down our throats. But, it does not apply to those who are not U.S. citizens. We have already seen how the U.S. treated Saddam’s sons and grandson. One company, called "Herbuilders" quickly produced a doll for kids to play with called "Uday, Dead on Arrival," that showed bullet holes and blood. I can only imagine how quickly this company would be put out of business and charged with a criminal offense if it offered the same doll depicting a U.S. soldier.

The U.S. government (Republican and Democrat alike) are the monsters, not Saddam Hussein. They are perverted and have an affinity for violence and delight in showing the bodies of dead enemies like they are trophies. But, the same people are aghast if someone utters an obscenity or make a joke about the president of the U.S. They are the misfits in the world who should be subjected to a show trial and then unceremoniously dropped into a hole in the ground. This is their version of "family values."

THEY GOT THE WRONG GUYS

On Monday, January 25, 2010, Ali Hassain al-Majid, better known as "Chemical Ali" was hanged by Iranian-backed Iraqi stooges. Slightly more than thee years ago, Iraq’s President, Saddam Hussein, was executed as well be the same Iran-lovers. Both shared the dubious title of having gassed Iraq’s Kurdish population at Halabjah in 1988. However, few people in the West checked out any facts to verify the guilt or innocence of the two Iraqi leaders.

THe most damaging and damning incident for the Iraqi leadership was the gassing of Halabjah, a Kurdish town, in 1988. Halabjah came under attack with chemicals and the world saw the tragedy as people were strewn on the streets. However, the media did not pay a great amount of attention to the incident and it quickly was replaced in the international press.

In the buildup to Desert Storm, Bush I took the Halabjah gassing out of the closet and he made great strides in gaining support for a military conclusion to the occupation of Kuwait by Iraq. All of a sudden we heard him tell the world, "He gasses his own people."

That statement was made so many times by administration officials that it became a household cliché. The problem is that no one ever checked out its authenticity. A few months after Desert Storm, Greenpeace published an in-depth study called On Impact about the reasons for the Gulf War massacre and how, in the future, war should be a last option instead of a first choice. A portion of the report covered the demonizing of the Iraqi leadership. It brought out many lies Bush used to persuade the world to support military intervention. Then, it addressed the Halabjah incident and threw doubt on whose military forces attacked the town with chemical weapons. On Impact quoted two writers from the U.S. Army War College who wrote a book called Iraqi Power and Security in the Middle East. They concluded:

The first attack occurred at Halabjah in north-central Iraq. All accounts of this incident agree that the victims’ mouths and extremities were blue. This is consonant with the use of a blood agent. Iraq never used blood agents throughout the war (Iran-Iraq War). Iran did … hence, we concluded it was the Iranian’s gas that killed the Kurds.

This short statement is devastating in many aspects. If doubt is cast on who gassed the Kurds, many people in American politics will not come out smelling squeaky clean on the issue of integrity. A considerable number of persons stated: "I would not support a war except that Saddam gassed his own people." .

A document from the U.S. Marine Corps contradicted the popular belief of Saddam Hussein being the perpetrator of the gassing incident at Halabjah. On December 10, 1990, a little over a month before Desert Storm began, a document titled "Marine Corps Historical Publication FMFRP 3-203" was released. The main topic was "Lessons Learned: Iran-Iraq War." Appendix B referred to "Chemical Weapons." The report went into the Iraqi use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq War and concluded that Iraq used mustard gas, a non-lethal agent, to disperse human waves of Iranian soldiers. Then, it approached the gassing of the Kurds at Halbjah:

Similarly, we find no evidence whatsoever that the Iraqis have ever employed blood gasses such as cyanogen chloride or hydrogen cyanide.

Blood agents were allegedly responsible for the most infamous use of chemicals in the war — the killing of Kurds at Halabjah. Since the Iraqis have no history of using these two agents — and the Iranians do — we conclude that the Iranians perpetrated this attack. It is also worth noting that lethal concentrations of cyanogen are difficult to obtain over an area target, thus the reports of 5,000 Kurds dead in Halabjah are suspect.

It is unlikely that the U.S. Marine Corps would tell its troops, who were about to face combat, a lie perpetrated by propaganda. It was okay for Bush to con the world, but the Marines attempted to research the incident and get its people ready for battle.

The fact that the U.S. Marines "concluded" that Iran gassed the Kurds of Halbjah was not the only striking portion of this document. It questioned the number of deaths. Researchers have come forward who state that several hundred bodies were found, not 5,000.

By 2002, various individuals had time to dissect the reality of Halabjah and in the buildup to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, many came forward to challenge the "he gasses his own people" statement. Included in the naysayers were retired CIA analysts, retired military personnel, journalists and others. They uncovered much proof to show that Iran may have gassed the Halabjah Kurds.

Stephen Pelletiere was the CIA senior analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War. From the gassing incident at Halabjah until today, he maintains that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds. On January 31, 2003, the New York Times published a commentary by Pelletiere called "A War Crime or an Act of War?" The article dispelled many myths about the "he gasses his own people" statement:

The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.

But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.

I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

Pelletiere mentioned many other aspects of the battle in which Halabjah was positioned between the Iraqi and Iranian forces. He also delved into the importance of Halabjah’s location because of water systems and the nearby Darbandikhan Dam. Pelletiere added:

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned.

Pelletiere’s piece raised only a few eyebrows, yet it was comprehensive and accurate. The administration had already put forth so much propaganda that the truth was not going to be approached by the mainstream media. Pelletiere’s account should have been the pivotal subject on all the talk shows and in the print media, but it was largely ignored. He concluded:

Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?

The basic facts of what happened in Halabjah have been corroborated by the CIA, the U.S. Army War College, and the United States Intelligence Agency. Mohammed al-Obaidi, a university professor in the United Kingdom, who was born and educated in Baghdad, brings up these facts as well as the more recent assessment of the U.S. government that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds in his article of December 20, 2004, titled "What Happened in Kurdish Halabjah?" that was published by various Internet media:

Iran overran the village and its small Iraqi garrison on 15 March 1988. The gassing took place on 16 March and onwards; who is then responsible for the deaths — Iran or Iraq — and how large was the death toll knowing the Iranian army was in Halabja but never reported any deaths by chemicals?

Having control of the village and its grisly dead, Iran blamed the gas deaths on the Iraqis, and the allegations of Iraqi genocide took root via a credulous international press and, a little later, cynical promotion of the allegations for political purposes by the US State Department and Senate.

After 15 years of support to the allegations of HRW, the CIA finally admitted in its report published in October 2003 that only mustard gas and a nerve agent was used by Iraq.

The CIA now seems to be fully supporting the US Army War College report of April 1990, as a cyanide-based blood agent that Iraq never had, and not mustard gas or a nerve agent, killed the Kurds who died at Halabja and which concludes that the Iranians perpetrated that attack as a media war tactic.

The late Jude Wanniski was relentless in his pursuit of the truth about Iraq. He was an unlikely ally because he was a conservative author and journalist and at one time the associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. However, he possessed unbreakable integrity and truth meant more to him than a political stance.

Wanniski wrote hundreds of thousands of words about Iraq and challenged any journalist who relayed the falsehoods of Iraq to clarify his/her research. None responded. In addition, he issued the same invitation to every U.S. politician who had denigrated Iraq using false information. The result was the same as with the journalists.

On February 18, 2004, Wanniski wrote a column called "Defending Saddam, not President Bush." He stated:

One of the things history shows us over and over again is that men and women who were thought to be EVIL incarnate in their own day — and had to be exterminated — are not so bad in hindsight. I’ve told my family and friends these last several years that I really wish information would be unearthed to show that Saddam Hussein did all the evil things he has been accused of doing, so I could shed my defense of him. Until that happens, I am stuck with him.

Jude Wanniski was on top of the Iraq issue like no one else. I have written about the date of July 18, 2004 being one of extreme importance because Tony Blair announced to the world that 5,000 bodies had been found in mass graves in Iraq, not the 400,000 he had told the world in November 2004. Before this statement had time to be uploaded to the Internet, Wanniski sent me this message: "I suppose you saw that Downing Street now says "5000" bodies have been unearthed, not 400,000. JW."

The relentless search for truth was paramount with Wanniski. He died at his computer while writing an article about Iraq on August 29, 2005. The world lost an incredible human being who defied his own acquaintances with his principled stand.

There are a couple of issues that should make anyone with an inquisitive mind question the story-line of various U.S. administrations about Halabjah. First, many pictures and videos have been shown of Iraqi planes and helicopters in the air that supposedly unleashed the gas on the Kurds. The problem with this scenario is that the gas was dispersed by artillery, not from the air. Artillery rounds were found to be the culprit, not bombs.

Secondly, not one person from the Iraqi military has come forth to say he was involved with the operation: not one pilot, nor a supply person, nor a truck driver, nor a clerk. There was, and probably still is, a huge amount of cash awaiting an Iraqi military participant in the gassing of the Kurds who will come forward. The oft-said statement that "Saddam would kill him or his family" is no longer relevant. This lack of someone claiming the bounty is probably the best evidence to refute the general impression that "he gasses his own people."

Ali Majid got caught up in the propaganda and was dubbed "Chemical Ali" by the Western press. However, no one in Iraq ever called him that. Most Iraqis, whether pro or anti-Saddam did not believe the gassing of the Kurds was committed by Iraqi troops. They were befuddled by such stories put forth by Western news sources.

Those who put the hangman’s noose on both Saddam Hussein and Ali Majid are far more responsible for the gassing of the Kurds than Saddam or Ali ever were.

THEY WILL ALWAYS REMEMBER

As we approach the third anniversary of the murder of President Saddam Hussein by U.S. and Iranian-backed cowards, the current stooge prime minister of Iraq, Maliki, is sparing no effort in attempting to erase the memory of Saddam and the Ba’ath Party from Iraq’s collective remembrance. Most leaders who are killed in a coup or an invasion of a foreign country usually have their corpses paraded around for the people to throw things at, or they are buried in some junk heap in a landfill and forgotten. Not so with Saddam. His memory and his accomplishments are alive and well in the psyche of millions of Iraqis.

On December 5, 2009. Al-Jazeera News ran an article called "Longing for Saddam in Kikrit." It began:

For a few months, Maliki has blamed every act of violence in Iraq on Saddam Hussein supporters, despite most being conducted by his own government. A day does not go by without Maliki denigrating Saddam Hussein. He is obsessed. The main reason for this preoccupation is that Maliki realizes the Iraqi people are much more proud of Saddam than himself. Jealously prevails.

The following is a recent article I wrote that goes into detail about how Maliki is trying to make Saddam’s memory disappear. His methods are not working.

First, they took his name out of Iraqi history books. Then, they made a criminal charge that constitutes a two-year prison sentence for displaying a picture of him in public. Now, the Iraqi government has banned people from visiting Saddam Hussein’s grave.

According to an article in Al-Jazeera News of July 6, 2009, titled "Iraq Bans Visits to Saddam’s Grave:"

First, for years we heard Saddam and his sons called "butchers" by the West. But, the remains of him and his sons indicate the most brutal form of butchery. His sons were chopped to pieces by hundreds of bullets and artillery shells, while Saddam’s body was defiled by rabid Iran supporters after he was hanged. The imagery of butchery lives in the graves of the Hussein family, but it was butchery imposed by outsiders, not by Saddam and his sons.

Last week, I gave a speech at San Diego State University to a class of Professor Khaleel Mohammed, a well-known expert on Islam. The kids were mostly aged from 18-21 and most did not even remember the March 2003 invasion of Iraq because of their young age at the time.

I spoke about the re-writing of Iraq’s history in Washington, D.C. by U.S. personnel and how the history books were blank from the years 1968 to 2005. Most of the students seemed skeptical of my assessment. They could not believe the U.S. would pull such dirty tricks.

The professor injected a statement. He told of his being a professor in Toronto at the time of the invasion and that he was contacted by the U.S. government to discuss the subject of Iraq’s education. They flew him to Washington, D.C. and offered him a top post in the program of re-writing Iraqi history. He said the salary they offered was astronomical. But, once the discussions began, he knew this was not a job he could perform. He was told that Iraqi history was to be re-written in Washington and it must reflect U.S. propaganda and turn the Iraqi education system into a carbon copy of the U.S. system. The professor said he refused because he would not be able to live with himself if he participated in such a venture.

Then, he pointed to a middle-aged woman in the class and said, "We have an Iraqi in class who went through the times of Saddam. What is your opinion?" She said that she learned more in the seventh grade in Iraq than she has at a top U.S. university. I asked her when she graduated from Baghdad University and she replied, "1985." She then said she taught high school for a few years. But, her next statement kind of shocked the students, most of whom only knew what U.S. propaganda had thrust on the public. She said, "In those days, we had freedom. Under Saddam, we had total freedom. Not so today. My niece, a Christian, has to be fully-veiled when she leaves the house, despite it being against her beliefs. Plus, what there is of an education system today in Iraq is pathetic."

Today, I sent Professor Mohammed the Al-Jazeera article about banning visitors from Saddam’s graveside. Here is his response:

This is not the first time people were stopped from visiting Saddam’s grave. On the first anniversary of his death, thousands were not allowed to pay tribute. According to an article in The Times of London, called , "Thousands Prevented from Visiting Saddam Tomb on Anniversary of Execution," and published on December 30, 2007:

In December 2003, after the announcement of Saddam’s capture by U.S. troops, the streets of Baghdad were filled with pro-Saddam supporters. The following day, U.S. military personnel surrounded a Baghdad school, Adnan Kheiralla Boy’s School, and dragged about 40 students by their hair and held them for a couple of days in cages. Their crime? They had a picture of Saddam Hussein in their class.

Such actions are not indicative of a "democratic" society, one that was forced on Iraq by the U.S. The other day, I saw an automobile bumper sticker with the words "Free Iraq" on it, commemorating the new democratic Iraq. Another sticker, on the other side of the bumper, heralded the praising of Jesus for freeing the Iraqis.

If Saddam is such a spent force, why are the stooges in Baghdad so bent on denying his existence or stopping people from visiting his grave, or even mentioning his name? Logic tells us that if the denigration was true, the Iraqi quislings would promote Saddam’s "brutal legacy." Plus, Maliki is very jealous. Saddam’s presence could command hundreds of thousands of people to show up to listen to his greetings to the Iraqi people. If Maliki gave a public speech, he couldn’t get a swarm of flies to attend even if he had barrels of honey surrounding him.

Today, the "Arab street’ considers Saddam Hussein as one of the greatest leaders in Arab history, arguably the greatest in modern times. Even some of his critics from before the March 2003 invasion are now speaking of his foresight. In my book, The Mother of All Battles: The Endless U.S.-Iraq War, I include a speech given by Saddam Hussein at the Amman Summit in Amman, Jordan on February 24, 1990. Point-by-point, he laid out the future of the Arab world if it did not recognize and resist U.S. plans for domination of the Arab entity. The leaders did not listen, but the Arab people did. Today, they see that speech as the blueprint for U.S. hegemony in the Arab world. It’s too bad the leaders did not take the message to heart.

News analyst and Middle Eastern expert, Husayn al-Kurdi passed on his comment today about the ridiculous decree that makes it illegal to visit Saddam’s grave:

One thing is a fact that upsets the pretenders in Baghdad: no matter how many laws are enacted or how many arrests are made, the Iraqi people will not forget Saddam Hussein and the accomplishments of his leadership and those of the Ba’ath Party. The more they try to eliminate Saddam’s memory, the more they fail. Saddam made Iraq worth fighting for.

A BLACK CAT IN A DARK ROOM

In Britain, hearings are being held about the lies leading up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. At first, the commission members attempted to whitewash all the incidents. But, parents of those killed in Iraq have put enough pressure on the commission to get at least some truth out. In the past week or so, they have changed their tune and have admitted to much of what we already knew, but it’s the first time public figures of the government of Britain are telling a portion of the truth. There is so much pressure being put on them, that they have opened up subjects, albeit mostly to save their own careers. The publicity being given these hearings is loud enough that if the commission members kept on lying, their falsities would be published in every newspaper in the country.

However, there is still one issue they evade: the fact that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) since 1992. Their statements say that they ignored information that Iraqi WMD may be degraded by 2002 and they would be of no use. Another swerve is that they say that Iraq lacked the delivery systems for WMD and could not use them. They still will not admit there were no WMD in Iraq and it was irrelevant whether the Iraqis had proper delivery systems. If there is nothing to deliver, the question of delivery is null and void.

The front page of the Baghdad Observer of June 11, 1995 is just one of the items that proves Iraq had no WMD. It shows a picture of Saddam Hussein in the middle, flanked by two articles ("Iraq’s Cooperation with UN Must Be Rewarded" and "Iraq Pins Hope on Next SC Report to UN Council") in which it is clearly stated the Iraq said all its WMD were destroyed. However, even this message has been tweaked by current journalists, historians, and politicians. After the embarrassment of not finding even one gram of WMD, the new story line was that Saddam hoodwinked the world by keeping them thinking Iraq had WMD when it didn’t. If this was the case, I doubt the two articles of the front page of the Baghdad Observer would display Saddam with two articles discussing the destruction of the country’s WMD in 1991 and 1992.

When one looks back at statements and articles by Iraqis during the period of 1991 to 2003, it is uncanny how accurate they were. On the other hand, much of what the U.S. put forward has been shown to be outright lies.

For instance, in October 2002, the U.S. issued a document called "Key Judgements: National Intelligence Estimate." It concluded that Iraq was constantly developing its stockpile of WMD and, at times, maintained that the 2002 inventory of Iraqi WMD may be larger than that of the country prior to 1991. The report included many doomsday scenarios.

This document was publicised world-wide. Virtually every daily newspaper in the U.S. carried it, or excerpts from it. Many foreign countries saw it as well and it helped convince some leaders who were on the fence about whether to support a war or not to come aboard the U.S. ship. In looking at the document today, one would have a hard time finding even one bit of truth. Even U.S. administration officials admitted it was way off; after the illegal invasion, of course.

On the other hand, in November 2002, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Naji Sabri, sent a letter to the Unite Nations refuting the report. Then, he gave in detail the standing of Iraq in regards to its WMD. He mentioned when they were destroyed and how programs were never re-started. The U.S. called the letter a big lie and condemned the Iraqis for again trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the world. In looking at the letter today, it is extremely accurate in every detail.

Sabri's letter received little attention, other than the obligatory denouncement by the U.S. Few people read it.

When Iraq and the U.S. shared diplomatic ties in the 1980s, Nizar Hamdoon was the Iraqi Ambassador to the U.S. In Washington, he was well-regarded and built many friendships. In the 1990s, with no diplomatic ties between the two countries, Hamdoon was called back to action and served as the Iraqi Ambassador to the U.N. In 2000, he was replaced and called back to Baghdad to serve in the Foreign Service.

Hamdoon was very visible in the U.S. and many people remember him from television appearances, although he was usually lambasted by interviewers. His was a lonely job. On July 4, 2003, a few months after the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq, Hamdoon died of cancer.

Let's to back to the latter part of 1998. The U.S. was accusing Iraq of concealing the most deadly chemicals on Earth and in December, Clinton ordered the bombing of Iraq and called the procedure Operation Desert Fox. Most people remember this as the "Iraq/U.N. standoff." Even the method of removing the inspectors from Iraq was a lie. The U.N. ordered the inspectors from Iraq a few days before the bombing, yet the U.S. always stated that Saddam Hussein kicked them out.

During this time, Nizar Hamdoon wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times called "A Black Cat in a Dark Room." The paper carried it, yet few people took it seriously. Go back to the time and refresh your memory and you will see how exact and precise Hamdoon was in his assessment. He did not lie, yet few listened. He clearly stated that Iraq was free of WMD.

"A BLACK CAT IN A DARK ROOM"

by Nizar Hamdoon

Much has been said and published about recent standoffs between Iraq and the United Nations arms inspectors. But those criticizing Iraq for suspending its cooperation with the United Nations special commission on arms inspection, better known as Unscom, give no recognition whatsoever to the underlying reason that led Iraq to adopt this position. It is time to set the record straight.

First, the whole world knows by now that Iraq has lost well over a million of its people as a direct result of the sanctions that have been in place for eight years. A former president of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, was chillingly correct when he called sanctions a "peaceful, silent and deadly remedy." U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright herself characterized them as "the toughest multilateral sanctions in history." Many critics seem to think the government of Iraq is supposed to stand idle while watching a whole generation of its people melt away like snowflakes.

Second, Iraq has complied with all the fundamental requirements of disarmament in Security Council Resolution 687. Unscom itself admitted this reality in its April 11, 1997 report to the Security Council when it said, "The accumulated effect of the work that has been accomplished over six years since the cease fire went into effect between Iraq and the coalition is such that not much is unknown about Iraq's proscribed weapons capabilities." But the United States and Britain refuse to recognize this fact. Their role in preventing the Security Council from closing the clearly done nuclear file a few months ago is a case in point.

The disagreement between Iraq and the inspectors is not on existing weapons. No weapons or sites have been discovered by the Unscom inspectors on their own since 1991. Those that have been found have been produced by the Iraqi government itself. Rather, the recent disputes involve paper documentation that precedes the gulf war. Those issues can be pursued in the context of the already established ongoing monitoring regime.

There are two main questions that need to be asked when assessing Iraq's compliance with disarmament requirements: does Iraq still possess proscribed weapons or the means to produce them, and is the monitoring process working? The answer is no to the first, yes to the second. Unscom's allegations about documentation are nothing but excuses to manufacture a crisis whenever one is needed to prolong the sanctions.

Iraq has said all along that there must be a creative way to reconcile the two goals: the need for more documentation and the easing of the suffering of the Iraqi people. Unscom, unfortunately, is insisting on everything or nothing.

Iraq will never be able to satisfy Unscom because it is being asked to prove the negative: that it does not have any more weapons. There is, of course, no way Iraq can prove that it has nothing if it has nothing. How many more Iraqis will have to die because Richard Butler's team has not yet found another document, which cannot be located because there is no such document in the first place? The inspectors are searching for a black cat in a dark room where the cat does not exist.

Third, many American officials have stated that even if Iraq complies with the Security Council's resolutions, the United States will not approve the lifting of sanctions. The declared goal of Washington is to remove the current government of Iraq. We wonder of this goal is in line with the letter and spirit of international law and the United Nations resolutions. Iraq continues to believe that the resolutions are used by the United States as a cover for an illegal political agenda. The allocation of money to the Central Intelligence Agency for subversion in Iraq is just a unit in this series. One might wonder why Iraq should continue being part of this futile and endless game.

Fourth, Ms. Albright claims that every Iraqi receives a daily ration basket equivalent to the recommended caloric intake of the average American. Perhaps she needs to review the latest reports by the United Nations and other organizations which state that millions of Iraqi children and women are still suffering and that the oil-for-food program is not adequate. For instance, the 1998 World Disaster Report by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies described Iraq as a country under siege and said 16 to 27 percent of the population is malnourished.

Finally, many high-ranking American officials keep speaking about Iraq as being a threat to American interests and the region. We would like to assure these officials, and through them the American people, that Iraqi is eager to live in peace with its neighbors and the world. But Iraq will not submit to intimidation, bullying and coercion. Peace will come only through dialogue based on mutual respect for the principles of independence, sovereignty and the observance of international law.

COLUMBUS AND APPLES

"In fourteen ninety-two, Columbus sailed the ocean blue," began the annual ditty in U.S. elementary schools in the 1950s and 1960s. Reciting this poem was an obligatory performance that was followed by the kids taking out their Crayola crayons and illustrating Columbus and his three ships; the Nina, the Pinta and he Santa Maria.

All the depictions of Columbus showed an honorable and brave man: one worthy of the accolades given him. For years, the common question in kids’ schools was, "Who discovered America?" Naturally, the answer was "Columbus."

We just had a federal holiday in the U.S. in honor of the great navigator. However, for the past few years, the size and number of celebrations of Columbus have diminished considerably.

After some years, it became evident that Columbus did not discover anything. People with villages, governments, trading operations and transportation were already there. Then, we learn that Columbus was in the wrong place. He thought he had reached India, hence the misnomer of Indians being thrust on the native population.

What Columbus did was open up a route for European nations to follow in his footsteps and travel to North and South America. Instead of Columbus being the discoverer of America, he, in fact, was the first soldier in the battle for stealing North and South America from its inhabitants. When the smoke cleared, about 30 million Native Americans had died because of the European explorers and their following generations. Some Native Americans were outright killed by weapons and others died from diseases they had never encountered. Columbus was the initiator of one of the most deadly holocausts in world history, only being outdone by the deaths of African-Americans in the slave trade over the centuries.

Once the initial discovery of Native Americans was heralded, the Catholic Church became involved. Instead of just plundering the Western Hemisphere of its riches, the native savages had to be converted to Christianity. If they refused, they were killed. If they accepted, they were allowed to live in slavery.

In my area of southern California, there was a large number of Native Americans who belonged to the Kumeyaay tribe. They were devastated. Their villages were burned and many were killed. The survivors who chose the path of Christianity were enslaved in the Catholic missions and on ranches.

Instead of being ashamed of such a past, there are many missions throughout California that are kept up as tourist attractions. San Diego has several missions from the 18^th century that welcome tourists from all over the world. Even the city’s major league baseball team denotes this past: the San Diego Padres. The team logo shows a priest (padre) wearing the typical clothing of the heyday of the missions.

For years, Columbus Day has been a holiday in the United States. Almost every community holds a parade. The Italian-American clubs, the Knights of Columbus, and the Sons of Italy all come out in commemoration of their most notorious national hero.

In the 1990s, however, things began to change. In 1991 in San Diego, a counter Columbus Day parade occurred on the border with Mexico. Thousands attended, especially those San Diegans of Hispanic heritage. Since then, the annual parade and demonstration has outdrawn the official Columbus Day parade held in downtown San Diego.

Three years ago, Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, had heard enough about the merits of Christopher Columbus. That year, October 12, in Venezuela, was officially called "Indian Liberation Day." This has been a very popular change in Venezuela. Bolivia is also attempting to set the record straight. On October 12 of 2006 year, Bolivia’s president, Evo Morales, held a conference with Native American delegates from all over North and South America.

Let’s get back to San Diego. The once strong Kumeyaay tribe has been splintered into smaller segments; each with a name and the Kumeyaay designation. For instance, those Native Americans living in the Lakeside area of the county are the Barona Band of the Kumeyaay Nation. Other local tribes are the Campo tribe, the Sycuan tribe, the Jamul tribe and the La Posta tribe. They are all Kumeyaay, but have been split by the white man.

In the early 1990s, all the San Diego tribes were dirt poor. Then, they became involved with casinos. Today, most are very rich and have powerful political clout. After all, they donate much money to local economies and offer thousands of jobs.

With this quick turnaround, one would think it would have helped the Native Americans restore some of the pride they lost centuries ago. This has not been the case.

The Barona tribe now has a huge casino; a multilevel luxury hotel; a championship 18-hole golf course; and several gourmet restaurants. They are rolling in money. After the expansion, the Barona tribe officially called its business ventures "Barona Ranch and Casino." To a Native American, the term "ranch" is identical to that of "plantation" for an African-American. It should be the last thing they would want to call themselves. Imagine an African-American restaurant calling itself "The Plantation." The logic of the Barona tribe eludes me.

Let’s go to the Campo tribe. In 1991, one of their committee members told me that Native Americans have two days a year that are devastating to their pride: Columbus Day and Thanksgiving. He was very upset how mainstream America celebrates these holidays with no thought to the feelings of Native Americans.

In September 1992, the Campo tribe purchased the weekly newspaper of which I was the editor. This was the first adjudicated newspaper in the U.S. owned by a Native American tribe.

I thought this was a wonderful mix. The tribe kept me on as editor and I assumed I would be able to write about Native American history and other sociological issues concerning natives. Each day, I would hear tribal committee members denigrate white people. Most of the time, they were right and I agreed with them. "The lying white man," "The white man’s justice," etc. were terms that I heard frequently.

I wrote a feature article concerning the prior year’s anti-Columbus Day parade and thought the committee would like it. They were now the publishers, so I showed them my articles before they went into the design stage of the newspaper. When they read my article, which actually was quite mild, they went through the roof. "We can’t print this," said the chairman. I asked, "Why?" He bellowed, "It will upset the white man." The prior publishers (two middle-aged apolitical white women) would have had no problem with the article.

I had two emotions after this experience. The first was the hypocrisy of denigrating the white man and then not wanting to publish an article that may "upset the white man." The second was a sadness of the total lack of pride these Native Americans had.

Before the Campo tribe bought the paper, I learned of a term for Indians who suck up to the white man: apple. An apple is red on the outside and white on the inside. A similar analogy would be the term "Oreo" that was affixed to African-Americans who cowered to the white man decades ago: an Oreo (an American snack item) is black on the outside and white on the inside.

My days at the newspaper were numbered. It folded a few weeks later because of a total lack of competence on the part of the publishers. But, I saw first-hand what an "apple" was and it was disgusting.

Since then, the Campo tribe has gained money from its own casino. Many once-poor Native Americans are now experiencing a fruitful life in southern California. However, the spokespeople for the tribes now sound like Rush Limbaugh. They support and sponsor many pro-war demonstrations and parades and tell how proud they are to be Americans. I have spoken to a few tribal members who are not on committees and they have told me of their disgust of the hypocrisy of their leaders solely to gain financial benefits.

And, here’s the biggest irony: the first building one sees when he/she enters most of the San Diego County tribal lands is a huge Catholic Church.

THE DAY THE COLD WAR CAME TO LA MESA

In 1983, I moved back to my home country, the United States, after having spent the prior eight years living in England and The Netherlands. What I thought would be a seamless transition of culture has turned into a 26-year odyssey. The country had changed immensely from 1975, the year I left for Europe. I am still trying to find out what went wrong.

In addition, I moved to one of the most conservative areas of the nation: San Diego County.

By 1984, I saved enough money to open my own business. In the U.S. I had worked in the sporting goods trade for years, so I thought this would be a natural business for me to start. Because the weather is almost tropical in the area, golf and tennis are played year-round, so I highlighted those two sports.

I found an area of La Mesa, a small city bordering San Diego, that had a quaint look to it and was not as commercial-looking as the numerous strip malls. Little did I know that this portion of La Mesa was distrustful of outsiders and was laden with racists.

I went to the city hall and gathered the paperwork necessary for the knowledge of building codes. My building fit all the necessary rules. Most of the businesses were painted in a dull beige or rust color, so I decided to turn mine into a tri-shade of blue, both inside and outside.

About a week after I opened the business, I received a call from a city official. She was terse and asked, "When are you going to paint your building?" I explained that I had just finished the painting. Then, she said it was the wrong color. We went back-and-forth over this and she admitted that there was no stipulation about the color, but the area tried to keep its "traditional" look intact. Fifty years prior, there was only a dirt road in the area, so I told her, "The only traditional look of La Mesa would be tepees and covered wagons." She was irate.

I could see now that some of the local businesses were trying to undermine me. When I went to get my business license, the city planning board denied it. When I asked why, they said, "Your sign is on a building wall and our rules stipulate that a sign must not be a part of a building wall."

I went back to my store and checked out their allegations. My sign consisted of several sheets of plywood erected above the building wall and held up by wooden planks inserted at an angle into the roof. Then, I checked out other businesses in the area and discovered that about 90% of them were out of code. My store was one of the few that adhered strictly to the code. I went to the library and found a document from an international meeting in 1913 that set the standards of a building wall for international interpretation.

I again visited the planning commission and told them that my sign was not part of the building wall. One member said, "We say it is." I then opened up the document explaining the definition of a building wall and they all turned their heads away and one said, "We don’t want to see it." When I mentioned that 90% of the businesses in the area were out-of-code, they told me, "We don’t care. We’re talking about you business, not anybody else’s.

I knew a lawyer in San Diego from the law firm for which my wife worked as a paralegal. I told her my story. She said, "Let me make a call." A few minutes later, she called me and told me to pick up my business license. In her discussion with the planning group, she brought up the point of "prejudicial application of the law" and inferred a lawsuit was imminent. The planning group quickly changed its assessment of my business.

I had a nice business going; nothing to make me rich, but I met a lot of people and thew work was interesting. Soon after I opened, an incident occurred that did not sit well with the other business owners. A black customer bought a set of golf clubs from me and soon after, many black customers came into my store with business card in hand. The first black customer spread the word that there was a golf shop that wouldn’t screw black customers.

The section of La Mesa in which I was located saw very few black people. If one happened to be walking down the street, every business owner would stand in front of his/her store and give a dirty look, letting the black person know he/she was not welcome in this area of town. When blacks began to become regular customers, I would wait until they got in my store and then take a walk out front. Sure enough, there were store owners staring at my store. I used to holler, "Anything wrong? Is my store on fire or something?" Quickly, the cowards disappeared into their own businesses.

By 1988, I had variuos interesting regular customers who stopped my almost daily just to talk. They were not the standard conservative element that inhabited the area. Some were black; some had long hair and beards; some males had pony tails; and some of the females did not dress in the subdued manner that was expected in La Mesa. But, the owners begrudgingly accepted me and I did not confront them unless confronted first.

A rumor was spreading that a major movie was in progress and the street on which my store was located would be the scene of a glorious parade in which the hero rode at the head of the parade with the city mayor. I called the La Mesa Chamber of Commerce and was told this was true. Then, I asked if the movie company would be compensating the business owners for the wear and tear that their buildings would suffer. The Chamber said that the production company would not compensate any business.

I then called the movie company. An official stated that about $10,000 was allocated to the La Mesa Chamber of Commerce for the use of the portion of La Mesa Boulevard where my store was located. I smelled a rat. It was evident that the La Mesa Chamber president, Gordon Austin, who was slicker than 10 eels, would pocket the money along with one or two accomplices.

I asked about the storyline of the movie and the company told me that Sidney Poitier and River Phoenix were the stars and that Richard Benjamin was to be the director and the title was "Little Nikita." This was no amateur production. They added that River Phoenix was to play a U.S. teenager about to embark on a college career and he discovered his parents were Soviet spies. Poitier was the FBI person who would unveil the plot and Phoenix would turn his parents in. And, Gordon Austin, the CEO of the La Mesa Chamber of Commerce, was slated to play the part of the mayor of La Mesa, although the town was called Fountain Grove in the movie. In other words, this was another standard fare commie-bashing movie.

The day before the filming, a huge crew showed up with trucks laden with U.S. flags and red-white-and-blue banners. I watched as store-after-store was adorned with these patriotic symbols. They went up the opposite side of the street and began to come down my side of the thoroughfare. The store next door, called "Pretty and Plump," had just undergone its makeover. The employees stood out front and were mesmerized by the transformation.

Then, I heard a voice say, "Great, this store already has a place for a flagpole." He was speaking of my store. When his crew began to insert the flagpole in the bracket, I stopped them. I told the head of the crew, "There will be no U.S. flag on my store." He ignored me and I repeated myself loudly. He asked, "Who are you?" I said, "I own the fucking place." He then sarcastically asked, "What to you want, a Russian flag?" I responded, "No flags. Isn’t that quite easy to understand." "How about an Italian flag?" he queried.

My employee was a young woman who had at one time been though rehabilitation for methamphetamine addiction. She was now clean. She asked the guy, "Why don’t you take another snort, asshole?" Then, she explained to me that he was all juiced up. "Look at your nose," she told him. At that time, I knew little about the indications of whether someone was on speed or not. I have seen so many people who used the stuff since then that I can spot someone who is, or was, heavily into methamphetamine with ease.

Finally, the production guy said, "You just wait. I’ll take care of you." He then went to find a Chamber of Commerce official. By now, a crowd was building, including many of the local business owners.

Moments later, a crass-looking woman asked the production person, "Where’s he at? I’ll fix him." She didn’t know that I was standing right next to her. I asked, "Who the fuck are you going to fix?" She snapped, "You watch your language." I then said, "My language is correct. I used a verb, noun, and object. But, you exhibited the epitome of stupidity in asking a question with a ludicrous redundancy: ‘Where’s he at?" Her face was beet red and she was irate, yet she had little to say because she would have looked even a bigger fool than she was.

Then, I gave my assessment of the situation. I loudly stated, "I don’t want any fucking flag on my building and neither do I want any of the red-white-and-blue ribbons. I don’t care if every building on the block is adorned in such a manner, but don’t touch my store."

Some of those assembled were put out by my lack of "patriotism," but I quickly changed the subject and told them they were being cheated. I stated, "The La Mesa Chamber of Commerce is getting paid $10,000 by the movie company for using La Mesa Boulevard as the parade scene. Yet, the Chamber told me they were receiving nothing. The production company told me about the remuneration. In other words, none of you will get shit out of this, but this woman and Gordon Austin will be lining their pockets with cash. Think about that."

Within seconds, the woman left my store in a huff. Following her were several local business owners asking questions about the financing they heard was non-existent. The woman waved her hands back and forth and told them she had no comment.

The day of the filming was hectic. La Mesa Boulevard was lined with thousands of people. The casting department put out a message calling for people to participate. They did not get paid, but some were content to be able to say they were in a movie. Throughout the scene, I stood in my doorway with my employee next to me. We both had our arms crossed and looked at the event for what it was: a staged movie that portrayed xenophobia and resulted in a few local officials getting their palms greased.

I never saw the movie because I would not waste my money on such trash. But, I knew someone who had a videotape of it and asked if I could watch a portion. I fast-forwarded the tape to the parade scene. There was La Mesa Boulevard laden with people standing and sitting in front of stores adorned with red-white-and-blue cloth, paper, cardboard, and flags. Right in the middle of the businesses, La Mesa Golf, Tennis, Etc. was plainly seen only with its tri-color blue paint. It stood out like a sore thumb, but it looked far better than any of the contrived stores that surrounded it. If you ever see the videotape of this movie, or know someone who has one, check out the parade scene. I had a major role in its depiction, yet you will never see my name on the list of credits.

By far the worst offender of words using apostrophes consists of the words "its or it’s." This is something that does not fit into set rules. "It’s" is a contraction for "it is," not a word to denote possession. "Its" is the word that depicts possession. In the past 10 years, of the hundreds, or thousands, of times that I’ve seen these words used, the majority are wrong. By far, the biggest culprit is using "it’s" to describe the possessive. So what, you may ask? Anyone with more than a sixth grade knowledge of the English language would look at the incorrect word "it’s" and ask "it is what?" But, the misuse has taken hold in such a way that few people know the difference or care to.

Then came the use of apostrophes to denote the plural of words, instead of possession or a contraction. "Dogs became "dog’s." "Cars became "car’s." The list is long and tedious. One does not have to speak faultless Shakespearean English to be confused about these quandaries. Year-after-year, the number of words that are inserted with apostrophes to denote the plural are increasing. Unfortunately, the number of people who say ‘So what?" are increasing at the same rate.

On September 4, 2009, the renowned British author Keith Waterhouse died. He was a prolific author and journalist. I did not read many of his works, but his most famous was Billy Liar, a book that was made into a movie and a television series. He also wrote the TV series "That Was the Week that Was," a groundbreaking satirical look at British politics.

When I read his obituary, I discovered that Waterhouse was outspoken about the misuse of apostrophes. In fact, he began and organization called the Association for the Abolition of the Aberrant Apostrophe (AAAA). Members included other journalists who decried the downfall of the use of the apostrophe.

At first, I thought the increasing misuse of the apostrophe was unique to this side of the Atlantic. Most U.S. citizens have a hard time composing a three-sentence paragraph. With the advent of Internet communication, with all its illogical abbreviations and smile logos, I began to assess these aberrations as the beginning of the downfall of the English language. If enough mis-uses and stupid abbreviations came into play, it would be impossible for someone from Des Moines, Iowa to communicate with someone from Dultuh, Minnesota. I am by no means a strict purist on the use of the English language, but once each person begins to take shortcuts, soon the language will be incomprehensible, when the whole idea behind the use of language is to make a common method of communication.

I was wrong on that one. A few years ago, as I began to receive more and more e-mail messages from old acquaintances from Britain whom I knew decades ago, I saw the same aberrations. Evidently, today in Britain, greengrocers (fruit and vegetable market owners) are the worst offenders of this new lack of accuracy in the use of apostrophes (not apostrophe’s). Included below is an article that appeared in the British newspaper the Daily Mail last year. It is quite long but is well worth the time to read.

I am not usually a person who belongs to groups, but, if Waterhouse’s AAAA is still up and running, there is a chance I may put in my application.

Apostrophe Catastrophe! The Rogue Apostrophe Is Spreading Like Measles. It's Time to Fight Back...

This all started with a drink. But it very nearly didn't because when I looked at the cocktail list in the otherwise swanky Charlotte Street Hotel in London and discovered that martini's (sic) were £10.50 and classic's (sic) £10.50 I momentarily lost my thirst.

The price was bad enough. But did you have to pay extra if you wanted to have your drink correctly punctuated? And would a martini - mine's made with Plymouth gin, please, very dry, shaken with a twist - taste as good if it also contained a stray apostrophe?

Caught up in a spasm of punctuation-rage I, perhaps slightly aggressively, asked the poor waitress what those two utterly extraneous apostrophes were doing there. She backed away hurriedly and sent over the assistant bar manager.

Mariusz Szymecki may have been Polish but his English was fluent. Or almost fluent.

'Both spellings - martini's and martinis - are correct,' he said firmly. 'I know this is right because, when I heard what you wanted to know, I checked it on Google.'

On Google? Who in the name of a thousand question marks would rely on Google to be an authority on anything, least of all a grammatical matter?

The internet is awash with misspellings and punctuation solecisms. Nor is it much better out there in the real world. And the poor apostrophe is the subject of more abuse than any other dot, dash or squiggle.

For decades the nation's pedants have sighed and tutted over the so-called greengrocer's apostrophe - the one you find on piles of fruit and vegetables advertising the fact that apple's and banana's are for sale by the pound or kilo when no apostrophe is required to complete the plural.

If only apostrophe errors were confined to market stalls! Instead they have spread like a contagion, infecting public signs and notices, literature from reputable institutions, menus and shop signs - not to mention press releases, letters and emails.

According to a new study, the apostrophe causes more problems than any other punctuation mark. Almost half of 2,000 adults who sat a simple test were unable to use it properly.

But is anyone really bothered? On Newsnight last week even the great interrogator Jeremy Paxman seemed prepared to shrug off the apostrophe problem, saying: 'Maybe it's redundant now.' Or if Paxo had his way, 'maybe its redundant now'.

Nonsense! It may be under threat, but we should stand up for the simple apostrophe.

We should defend its honour - as the Daily Mail's own Keith Waterhouse has done for some time, with his organisation the AAAA ( Association for the Annihilation of the Aberrant Apostrophe).

I decided to spend a day policing apostrophes. Surely if people realised the error of their ways they would be moved to do something about it, wouldn't they?

I am barely awake when I stumble on my first howler, on the sandwich board outside the Shiraz Cafe, a greasy spoon on Hammersmith Road, West London, between my flat and the office, advertising 'pasta's, jacket potato's and panini's'.

Inside, Roshi, the Iranian proprietor, smiles beatifically when I inform her of the problem.

'I don't care,' she says mildly. But I do, I say. I don't add that the sight of an airborne curl of black where there should only be the white of the page stirs in me feelings of biliousness. I had worried that this might be a bit of an overreaction, until I read popular grammarian Lynne Truss on the subject.

Strict: If you still persist in writing: 'Good food at it's best', you deserve to be struck by lightning according to author Lynne Truss

'No matter that you have a PhD and have read all of Henry James twice,' writes Truss in her bestselling Eats, Shoots And Leaves. 'If you still persist in writing: 'Good food at it's best', you deserve to be struck by lightning, hacked up on the spot and buried in an unmarked grave.'

Goodness. Fortunately, wandering around Hammersmith, Kensington and Notting Hill I don't find a single aberrant it's. I do, however, find wheelbarrows full of greengrocer's apostrophes. There is one at an odds-and-ends shop advertising 'Pashmina scarf's' for £3 each.

'Yeah,' says a shop assistant when I take him to task on it. 'I know it's wrong. But someone else did that sign. He left about a month ago. We might get round to changing it.'

There are several more offenders on the menus of nearby cafes and bars. There is even one, threatening to 'copy plan's', plastered on the window of Copywell, a printing and copying centre.

Surely it should be incumbent on a printer to put his apostrophes in the right place. I drag a charming young graphic designer called Anam Islam out on to the pavement to show him the problem.

'Yeah, that is wrong,' he admits. 'And I did that one. It's funny because I was watching a documentary on apostrophes the other week and thought that I always got them right.'

Perhaps one of the reasons we remain so confused about the apostrophe is that it is relatively new to our language. The last punctuation mark to be standardised, it has been around in its present form for about 150 years.

The Oxford English Dictionary says the first record of the actual word 'apostrophe' in English is in Shakespeare's late 16th century play Love's Labour's Lost and that it is rooted in the Greek for ' turning away, or elision'.

This makes perfect sense: originally an apostrophe's job was merely to indicate the omission of letters, and this remains one of its most basic - and easily understood - tasks.

You need only think of contractions such as can't and daren't, dates such as the '80s or poems such as A Red, Red Rose by Robert Burns - 'Till a' the seas gang dry my dear/ And the rocks melt wi' the sun' - to see how it works.

And yet for some reason many people seem to find it tempting beyond belief to apply apostrophes to a word as if they were visual garnish.

It's not just fruitsellers who do this: a barrister friend shows me a letter to a judge positively strewn with extra apostrophes.

Plurals of abbreviations or acronyms are particularly prone to this treatment. How many times have you seen a sign offering CD's? And another friend, a policeman, tells me he often comes across ASBO's.

Serial offender: Greengrocers are regular offenders when it comes to putting apostrophes in the wrong place.

But worse than that, after popping into Nationwide Building Society to pick up a leaflet on savings, I find it blithely expounding on the subject of ISAs (fine) but also ISA's (not fine).

I phone the press office to remonstrate. 'The apostrophe shouldn't be there, no,' admits a jolly man on the end of the line.

'It would appear to be human error, though rogue apostrophes do seem to be increasingly prevalent. We'll try to remember to take it out on the next print run.'

By now I have been staring so hard all day at apostrophes that I am beginning to lose it. I can see them when I close my eyes, crawling like dark, specky insects across my retina.

And I haven't even tackled their possessive use yet.

According to the latest study, this is where people really struggle. Most of us are fine with the fact that, as well as missing letters, apostrophes are used to indicate possession.

So, the bike belonging to the boy could be written as 'the boy's bike'.

But what if the boy's name is James? Do we refer to James' bike? Or to James's bike?

It started with a drink: Victoria Moore's rage about misplaced apostrophes began when she saw martini's (sic) were £10.50 on a hotel menu

And what if there are several boys, all with bikes? When brain is engaged, most people are happy that the correct answer is 'the boys' bikes'.

But for some reason we are not entirely comfortable with this end-of-word apostrophe, particularly when it falls at the end of a sentence.

It's an aesthetic objection and we deal with it by. . . just missing off the apostrophe. Because we feel like it. Here are two examples: Visitors Toilet (seen in a hospital); Parents Association (countless schools).

As I am musing on this, an email arrives from a PR contact inviting me to a Ladies Social Evening.

Just as I finish emailing prissily back, 'Dear Ellie, Shouldn't it be Ladies' Social Evening?' my friend Tanya phones. 'Oh God, who cares about apostrophes?' she says, 'I think people who are uptight about them probably make terrible lovers.' Is there a chance I am taking this too far?

John Richards does not think so. Based near Boston in Lincolnshire, he is a retired journalist with bushy eyebrows and an absolute intolerance of misplaced apostrophes.

'It makes me feel despair more than rage,' he confides. 'I set up the Apostrophe Protection Society four years ago. I have tackled people in person. Usually offenders just get letters. I've sent out thousands. You can only plug away.'

Mr. Richards blames ignorance and laziness for our troubles. He is engaged in a minor squabble with the proprietor of a local teashop who insists on offering customers tea's.

'When I asked him about it he said he wouldn't change it because he thought it looked better with one in. What can you do? Needless to say, I haven't been in there for a tea or coffee.'

But what's this? Mr. Richards has also written a letter of complaint to the sainted Lynne Truss. He claims she has got something wrong. Before I tell you what it is, perhaps you could try to answer the following question. Which is correct?

(a) Dos and don'ts (b) Do's and don'ts (c) Do's and don't's The answer, according to Ms Truss, is (c). She says that for plurals of letters and certain words then an apostrophe is required.

For example, if you were asking how many s's there are in Mississippi or talking about the noise a crowd made on bonfire night - 'There were lots of oooh's and ahhh's.'

The answer according to Mr Richards is (a). He says: 'Lynne Truss can write what she likes but she's got to justify why you might use one when there are no missing letters and no possessive sense.

'There is no role for the apostrophe in plurals at all.'

Who will arbitrate? Well, David Crystal, professor of linguistics at Bangor University, isn't one for taking sides but he does believe that apostrophes in plurals are sometimes necessary.

'What if I ask you to dot your i's and cross your t's? How will you spell that? If you didn't use an apostrophe you'd have the word 'is' instead of i's.'

As he puts it in his book The Fight For English: 'Inserting an apostrophe is as good a way as any of showing there is an unusual plural.'

But Crystal goes further, and makes a good case for there to be a little more leniency in tricky circumstances.

'Punctuation has always been a matter of trends,' he says. 'Commas, hyphens, semicolons, apostrophes - all have been subject to changes in fashion.

Thinking about these issues as a two-part solution (correct vs incorrect) doesn't help.

'As with many linguistic issues, there are three solutions - correct, incorrect and optional (i.e. can't decide!). Pedants forget about context, which is what removes ambiguity in most cases.

For example, in the case of the Parents' Association, there could be no such thing as an association for one parent, so the apostrophe is simply unnecessary, which is why most people leave it out.

'The other thing people forget is that when the rules were drawn up 150 years ago, it was by printers who forgot about exceptions - such as some plurals - that had been in the language a long time.'

This is the point at which I decide I have had enough of apostrophes. Yes, it will still distress me to be offered a list of martini's or cocktail's. But I think in future I may require a more niche challenge. It's time to protest against the split infinitive.

UNREPORTED REPORTS

In the past few months, we have seen numerous reports about Iraqi homosexuals being tortured and killed, many times by agents of the stooge Iraqi government. All the mainstream multi-million-dollar organizations, such as Newsweek and CNN are cashing in on their supposed "scoops." However, they are three or four years out of time. In 2005, I, and a few others, notably Pat Sherman and Doug Ireland, wrote extensively about the issue. It took the mainstream media four years to come out with "revealing information."

Before I go into detail about the reporting, both from 2006 and the current surge in articles being thrust on the public, I would like to address an issue that may throw off some of the importance of writing about the slaughter of homosexuals. I have read commentaries by people of various nationalities who oppose the Iraqi invasion by the U.S. and have loudly stated their disgust with the ethnic cleansing of Iraqi Sunnis, Chaldeans and other minorities, state that they don’t care about homosexuals being targeted in Iraq. They may be opposed to homosexuality for religious or cultural reasons. But, that is not the issue here. No one has to accept the culture of another to defend that person’s right to be able to live if he/she is a contributing member of society. I am not homosexual, but I will fight with all my power to stop a program that allows for the torturing and killing of homosexuals. We shouldn’t be arguing about the merits or demerits of homosexuality, but about the civil rights of human beings on the Earth.

Scientific facts show that about 10% of all humans are born homosexual. About 10% of all humans are born left-handed. For centuries, any minority has been the target of society’s mainstream. Until the 1950s, in the U.S., if a kid wrote left-handed in school, the teacher would hit him/her with a stick on the left hand that created great pain. This was to stop the deviants from pursuing their natural left-handedness.

Today, homosexuals are targeted in many countries, but there are signs of a letting up of violence against them. If you remember, the nitwit president of Iran told the United Nations that there were no homosexuals in Iran. The audience laughed hysterically at his statement. Homosexuality is not contagious. No heterosexual person can catch homosexuality. It is a generic trait.

I’ll give you a story about my earlier years in which someone educated me about the point of bigotry and how it backfired on him. When I was 18, I worked in a large company with four buildings. On occasion, I would be walking to another building and run into the timekeeper, who was openly homosexual. We would talk about sports and music and then go our separate ways when we reached our destination. He was merely a casual acquaintance.

One day, a fellow in his 40s approached me and said that I should watch out for the timekeeper. I was curious why he was so worried about my welfare. He told me, "He might take you around the side of the building and try to suck your cock." The thought never occurred to me that he would try to do that.

A few days later, another individual whom I casually knew approached me and said, "I heard what that guy told you the other day about the timekeeper. Let me tell you a story of what I used to do when I was your age."
He then told of how he and two of his friends, each Friday night, would go to an area in Newport, Rhode Island which gay men frequented. He said they would then pick one out walking on the street and beat him up and take his money. In the U.S., this was commonly called "Rolling a fag." (In Britain, the same term indicates someone rolling a cigarette with tobacco and paper.) During the days of open violence against black Americans, whites would gang up on a black and beat him up. This was called "Nigger Knocking." We Americans are great at creating slogans for violence.

Getting back to the fellow who used to "roll fags," he continued, "One Friday night, my friends and I saw a homosexual of average build and about 5’ 8" tall. We thought he would be an easy target. Well, he beat the shit out of the three of us at the same time. We were laying on the ground, and he stood above us and said, ‘Don’t you ever try to do that to anyone again.’ The lecture hurt more than the beating. Let me tell you now, homosexuals are human beings just like everyone else. Don’t listen to those guys who tell you to be afraid of them."

Growing up, I had been misled many times by advice from "adults." Once you become an adult yourself, you discover how many jerks are out there who mislead younger people. The advice I was given by the person who retired from "rolling fags" after his thrashing was one of the few good pieces of advice I had ever received from adults during my teenage years.

Now, let’s get to the meat of reporting on the Iraqi pogrom against homosexuals.

In 2005, I reported about Ayatollah Sistani’s fatwah calling for the killing of homosexuals in the most severe manner. Two weeks later, George Bush called Sistani a man of great courage and integrity.

Reports about the slaughter began to emerge from gays who fled Iraq. Pat Sherman, a California journalist, contacted me and asked me what information I had. Then, he began to call people and get their statements about the violence against gays and lesbians. First, Nancy Pelosi dodged the issue and admitted she had not heard of this. Her official statement was, "I oppose bigotry in all forms." She had power to do something, but evaded the issue. Barney Frank, a homosexual congressman who is an advocate of gay rights told Sherman he had never heard of what was happening in Iraq and he would return Sherman’s call within 24 hours. He never called back. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch also pled ignorance of any knowledge of homosexuals being killed in Iraq.

Today, all the human rights groups, as well as Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank are outspoken opponents of the violence against Iraqi homosexuals. Once it became in vogue to oppose the actions, everyone wanted a piece of the action. When they could have acted four years ago, they were mute.

Here’s the big story that is now forgotten. In the articles that appeared in 2006, Iraqi gays told of the days prior to the March 2003 invasion when they were treated like human beings under the Ba’ath government. Ali Hili, an Iraqi gay activist who fled to London was a guest on the WBAI-FM radio show, Democracy Now in April 2006. He told the host, Amy Goodman:

Each gay Iraqi in the earlier days of reporting on the violence against them in Iraq told of how they led normal lives under Saddam. One said, "Those were the most glorious days of our lives." But, as we know, stories like this don’t make good news. The Western press relished anecdotes of Saddam being a butcher.

Then, the reporting stopped. About eight months ago, the "Johnny Come Latelies" began to give the situation much ink. For about a month, one of the standard questions asked was, "What was it like for gays under Saddam?" They received only responses of praise of the Ba’ath regime. Most reporters wanted the homosexuals to say that Saddam burned their balls in hot coals, or sliced off their penises. No such stories emerged.

In the past three months, I have read myriad reports about the current effort to erase homosexuals from Iraqi society. However, not one asked the question of the plight of gays under Saddam. The reporters learned their lessons and never ask the question any more. They probably were told by higher-ups to eliminate the question from their queries. I have yet to see any reporter mention this aspect of the subtle change of leaving out the question of the lives of gay Iraqis under the Ba’ath regime. All the human rights groups are now pushing the subject and the leftist press is inundated with appeals to help Iraqi gays. But, not one word is asked any more about the lives of Iraqi homosexuals prior to March 2003. The answers would embarrass the faux human rights groups and the milquetoast liberals who pick and choose their enemies in the same manner that the U.S. and its stooges call the shots of who is the good guy and who is the bad guy. They are as hypocritical, sometimes more so, than the conservative element they are always denigrating.

MISSIONARY IN REVERSE

A few years ago, I was speaking with a local author who told me that her book, North American Martyrs, was about to go through its third printing. She explained that the book was about six Roman Catholic missionaries who were killed by Native Americans in what is today Michigan in the 18^th century.

I told her that the title confused me and that a more appropriate moniker would be North American Terrorists. She was not happy with my remark. As she was explaining the plight of the missionaries, the words of Chief Pontiac of that area came to mind: "They come with bible in one hand and sword in the other."

Mark Twain once made a world speaking tour and chronicled it in his book Following the Equator. He spoke in many areas that were occupied by Western powers who stole the land from the indigenous people, all in the guise of saving them through Jesus. Twain was very emotional as he described the sadness and despair he saw in the native populations. He said that the Western world brought practices and items to these areas that thoroughly made the locals disheartened and almost in a state of submission. Items such as religion, clothing, a work schedule and a monetary system based on concepts the locals did not understand.

We have recently seen how the U.S. military has combined its deadly weapons with bibles in making Iraqis and Afghanis submit to foreign ideals. The missionary work goes on unabated.

However, there is a case that shows a reversal of the normal Christian missionary attempting to change the ways of the native populations. Recently, the book Don’t Sleep: There Are Snakes, by Daniel Everett was published.

Everett was a Christian missionary with an aptitude for language skills. A tribe in Brazil, the Piraha, had never had their language translated into any other. Everett was called on to chronicle the language and bring the word of Jesus to the savages.

In 1980, he made his first trip to a Piraha village and spent almost a year there. He became very friendly with the people and observed that they were great survivalists.

When he began to talk about faith with the locals, Everett seemed to come up against a brick wall. He explained:

At first, Everett was confused about the questions he was asked, but he thought he could eventually convince the natives for their need for Jesus. But, the Piraha became more pointed in their questioning. One day, a native asked, "What does Jesus look like? Is he dark like us or light like you?" Everett responded, "I’ve never seen him. He lived a long time ago, but I do have his words." The questions became more difficult to answer. They said it was impossible to have his words if he hadn’t seen or heard him. Everett added, "They made it clear that if I had never seen this guy, they weren’t interested in any stories about him." He continued:

Everett returned to the U.S. to gather his thoughts. He said:

Instead of trying harder to convince the Pirahas that they needed help, Everett looked at himself to see if he was in the wrong, not the natives. He explained:

It took Everett almost two decades to remove himself from the closet. When he did, he experienced exactly what he thought would occur: many of his friends left him and his wife of 35 years divorced him. Two of his three children disowned him. But, he did what he thought was right and did not feel comfortable living a lie.

Today, Daniel Everett is a leading linguist. His disagreement with some of Noam Chomsky’s ideas of linguistics have become controversial reading in the field.

A few months ago, his two distant children made peace with Everett and his new life is very full and interesting. He gives credit to the Piraha for his changes in his views and his current fulfillment of his desires in life.

Recently, the BBC4 radio network reviewed his book on its book-review program. It is about 10 minutes long and can be seen and heard at the following link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr3q6Cid1po

WHAT ABOUT REAL HEALTH INSURANCE?

People are hitting the streets in the U.S. in masses. Every day, we see violent demonstrations. We have seen fights and even guns brandished by some of the protestors. Speakers at "town hall" meetings have been shouted down to the point that the meeting must cease. The subject of these raucous events is the proposed overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system by Barack Obama.

Let’s be clear about one thing. Obama’s plan is merely window-dressing for business as usual. The supporters of this scheme maintain the U.S. will finally have a national health service. This is only lip-service to the administration.

On the other hand, the opponents are using outright lies to denigrate the planned changes. They accuse the Obama administration of bringing socialism to the U.S. Also, they maintain that the new legislation would require the killing of older people so the government would not have to pay for their health services.

Both sides have outright lied about most of the proposed legislation. There are various articles that have been written that expose the dishonesty of both camps, so I’ll not elaborate on the falsehoods. Plus, both sides have been generously financed by special interest groups.

The figures of the new plan that are being bandied about are astronomical, up to almost $2 trillion. But, there is little talk of something that could drastically reduce healthcare prices: health.

Various estimates put the number of U.S. citizens who are obese at 50-65%. Until a few years ago, tobacco was considered the number one killer of U.S. citizens. That has changed. For the past few years, problems caused by obesity have created more deaths in the U.S. and a drastic increase in healthcare costs. Are we seeing and hearing about a national program of health awareness? Of course not. A healthier U.S. would mean decreased profits for some billionaires.

There are myriad websites with very astute information on how to live a healthy lifestyle. But, they receive little attention compared to the number of overweight Americans. Worse, however, is the fact that there is absolutely no national program of health awareness coming from the U.S. government (Democrats and Republicans alike). Nothing.

In the U.S., people only pay attention to things they see on TV or hear on radio that are repeatedly broadcast. Most Americans will tell you (falsely, of course) that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and also was the force behind 9-11. This subject was run into the ground by the U.S. media. For a national awareness of one’s health, we need the same kind of relentless publicity, coming from the government itself. Fat chance.

Ask any number of U.S. citizens what’s America’s most popular beer, or who Oprah’s next guest will be, and about 90% will give an accurate answer. But, ask the same people how many Americans suffer from diabetes and you’ll get either a blank stare or a guess. Maybe one in a hundred will come close.

Current numbers vary from 23.6 million to 24 million U.S. citizens with diabetes, depending on which study you read. From 2007 to 2009, the number has increased by 15%. Most studies predict that in 10 years, about 50 million Americans will have diabetes. If this is not an epidemic, I don’t know what is.

Just 90 miles south of the U.S., there is a country that is combating diabetes: Cuba. About 10 years ago, the government began an education program. From the first grade up, Cuban kids learn of diabetes in school and how to prevent the disease.

The Cubans went even further than education: the government began an organic farming program. Farmers were paid to raise and sell crops to the government, which, in turn, sold them cheaply to the public. If a farmer had a surplus after selling his goods to the government, he was allowed to sell those privately.

Today, there are more than 7,000 plots occupying more than 81,000 acres on which organic food is farmed in Cuba. Many of these are located in urban areas as well as rural venues. In Havana, there are more than 200 gardens, some in small spaces between tower block estates, that supply the city’s population with more than 90% of their fruit and vegetables. The farmers are obligated to farm a certain amount of products for the Cuban government. The surplus then belongs to the farmers who sell it for profit, which is divided among them.

After the Soviet Union dropped Cuba like a hot potato, the island country found itself without finances. At that time, Cuba imported much of its food, so it had to change its methods to feed its citizens. The Independent daily newspaper of Great Britain ran a story on August 8, 2006, titled, "The Good Life in Havana: Cuba’s Green Revolution." According to the article:

Currently, the population of Cuba suffers diabetes at about 10% the rate of U.S. citizens who have the disease. Maybe the malady will be eradicated in Cuba someday.

In addition to diabetes, obesity creates deadly problems with one’s heart, lungs, liver and kidneys. But, there is no national program to dissuade people from over-eating or eating processed foods that create fatal diseases.

For instance, a recent report stated that someone at age 30 who eats one hot dog a day, or the equivalent in a processed meat, will be 21% more apt to have contracted colon cancer within five years than those who do not adhere to such dietary habits. Another report said that if someone eats two hot dogs a day for 10 years, that person will have a 90% chance of attaining colon cancer.

Now, let’s look at some of the crowds who recently have sprung up to either support or oppose the sleight-of-hand Obama healthcare plan. Most of the people carrying signs and who loudly state their opinions are obese (see photo at the beginning of this article). Not one is carrying a sign to oppose the eating habits of U.S. citizens.

Recently, a Florida doctor tried to gain the public’s awareness for a healthy eating regimen. What is his reward? He was fired and is facing lawsuits. According to an article posted on MSNBC on August 13, 2009, called "Florida Doctor Ousted After Denouncing Donuts:"

He then added signs stating: "Hamburger Spare Tire," "French Fires Thunder Thighs." He also mentioned Kentucky Fried Chicken by name as he tried to educate the public about the perils of fried chicken. But, his criticism of donuts did him in. The article continued:

(For non-U.S. readers, Dunkin’ Donuts is a nationwide donut shop that sells dozens of styles of donuts. Currently, there are more than 5,000 Dunkin Donut outlets in the U.S.)

A small portion of the U.S. public is aware of the hazards of processed food and attempt to eat organic items. Unfortunately, they are not widely available. Many towns may offer a "Farmer’s Market" for a few hours on one day a week in which farmers can sell their goods. Unlike Cuba, however, the prices of organic food in the U.S. are much higher than those of processed items. In other words, it is a luxury to try to eat healthy food.

The cost of healthcare in the U.S. far exceeds the cost of a preventive educational program about health for the U.S. public. Imagine if the U.S. called off the war in Iraq for one week. The savings in money would allow the government to produce and supply the public with healthy organic food. But, there are two problems with such a plan: 1. Nobody would make a profit, therefore making the plan un-American. 2. Instead of killing people, the money could be spent on helping people live, again another un-American concept.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, both major parties referred to the mainstream American as "Joe Six-Pack." What a degrading term, yet it was embraced by the public. Despite its abhorance, the term is quite accurate. Millions of U.S. males sit in front of a TV, swilling beer, and cheer for their favorite football team, or holler obscenities at the TV when the opponents score. About the only cardiovascular exercise they practice consists of their lung power and their vocal chords. Just think if these same millions of football fans decided not to watch the Sunday NFL game and took a walk or a swim and quenched their thirst with fresh fruit juice or water. But, again, that is un-American. It would be considered a part of a communist plot.

I have always maintained that those nations who oppose U.S. hegemony are wrong in their approach to bring justice to the world. Instead of speaking up against the imperialist actions of the U.S., they should keep quiet and out of the radar. Within a few decades, the U.S. public just might eat itself to death.

INGRATES

I have lived in three countries and have spoken to people from many nationalities. All consider human life to be valuable and all are protective of their own countrypeople. However, I have yet to meet someone of non-U.S. origin who holds the opinion that one life is more important that those of millions of people who do not share his/her nationality. Welcome to the U.S., a country that not only considers the life of one U.S. citizen to be superior to multitudes of lives of foreign nationals, but threatens nations who assist the U.S. in returning U.S. nationals to their homes, even though they have been held under criminal charges.

A couple of days ago, former President Bill Clinton became a national hero once again (he had previously achieved this status with talk show comedians during the Monica Lewinsky affair). He went to North Korea and gained the release of two U.S. journalists who had been tried and convicted for crimes against the nation of North Korea. There are those who maintain the two women were innocent, while others point to activities that show their guilt. One thing is sure: North Korea acted in a benevolent manner in releasing the two reporters.

For a few days prior to Clinton’s arriving back in the U.S. with the former prisoners, we did not hear too much about U.S. gripes against the Koreans. But, it did not take long for the administration to once again denigrate the same country that released the U.S. citizens.

Less than 24 hours after all the news networks reported on the return of the women, headlines of the day read, "U.S. Warns ‘Provocative’ North Korea." Remember Obama the anti-war person of a couple of years ago? He’s now the one publicly denigrating North Korea. He could have had the decency to wait a few days before he began his anti-North Korea tirades, but that would have been un-American.

Recently, another event occurred that showed once again that the U.S. will go to any means to denigrate innocent governments. On August 2, 2009, the U.S. Navy announced that the body of Michael Speicher had been found in the desert in Iraq.

If you remember, Speicher was officially the first member of the U.S. military to be killed in action in the Gulf War of 1991. It seemed the case was closed. However, over the years, the truth was turned around and shortly before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the U.S. government had rewritten history to say that Speicher was alive in an Iraqi prison. Administration officials brought up instances of Iraqis seeing him, limping and in terrible health. In a speech to the U.N. on September 12, 2002, George Bush used the rumors of Speicher’s being held prisoner as one of the reasons for invading Iraq. Again, the life of one U.S. citizen was worth more than the 26 million lives of Iraqis.

Over the years, many groups were founded for the purpose of gaining Speicher’s release from an Iraqi prison. Millions of Americans took up the cause. Then, in August 2009, a Bedouin stumbled across his body in the desert. Speicher was never captured. He was never a prisoner and the Iraqis never tortured him. His plane was shot down over the western part of Iraq and an unknown local person buried it out of respect.

Even after the March 2003 invasion when the U.S. had access to all of Iraq, harsh words about Speicher’s supposed capture and imprisonment permeated the subject. Senator Bill Nelson of Florida was at the forefront of denigrating the Ba’ath regime. According to an April 24, 2003 CNN article, "Initials May Offer Clue to Missing Gulf War Pilot:"

For years, we heard, "Saddam did it." But, the reality of Speicher’s death and the discovery of his body were much more mundane than all the conspiracy theories thrust against the Iraqi government.

From January 18, 1991 until April 9, 2003, the Iraqi government always maintained it did not recover Speicher’s body and that he was never captured. With all the years of speculation and the obligatory blaming of Saddam Hussein, now that the truth is out, I have yet to hear one person in the U.S. government apologize to the former Iraqi government for the fiasco that was created by the U.S. government and a portion of its population. Not one.

In 1995, there was a case of Iraqi benevolence that gained much publicity, yet still highlighted the ungrateful attitude of the U.S.

On March 13, 1995, two U.S. citizens (William Barloon and David Daliberti) were captured inside Iraq. Both worked for U.S. civilian contractors and maintained they lost their way trying to visit a friend in Kuwait.

At that time, the Iraq/Kuwait border was heavily reinforced by a deep ditch with towering fences on each side. The pair was well inside Iraq and it would have been almost impossible for them to have accidentally wandered into Iraqi territory.

They were taken to Baghdad and tried on charges of espionage. The couple received a sentence of eight years in prison. The Clinton administration then began its cover-up efforts. Spokespeople said the Americans were not spies because they did not have road maps with them at the time of their arrest. Most of the U.S. public believed the administration’s assessment. There is one aspect that few people took into consideration: spies do not go on a mission with roadmaps. They have memorized exact locations. If a spy used a roadmap, he/she would be put in the same category as Inspector Clouseau of Pink Panther notoriety.

With two of its citizens, accused spies, in Iraqi hands, one would think the U.S. would have been a little humble in its attempts to get them released. No such luck.

According to Douglas Jehl, author of "Americans in Iraq Given 8-Year Term," in the March 26, 1995 edition of the New York Times:

On March 27, 1995, the ante was raised. Steven Greenhouse wrote an article for the New York Times, "U.S. Vows to Press Hard on Iraq to Free Americans," in which he said:

For the entire time this story gained headlines, the U.S. press called Barloon and Daliberti "hostages." There is a substantial difference in meaning between the words "hostages" and "prisoners," but the subliminal message created by calling them hostages raised the ire of the U.S. citizens.

On March 30, 1995, the Iraqi government allowed a Polish diplomat and a reporter for CNN to visit the pair in prison. They stated that the prisoners were in good health.

On July 17, 1995, Bill Richardson, at the time a U.S. congressman, visited Baghdad to try to obtain the release of the pair. Saddam Hussein granted a pardon and allowed them to leave Iraq.

Despite the act of goodwill on behalf of the Iraqi government, the U.S. continued a barrage of insults toward the country. Warren Christopher, the U.S. Secretary of State at the time, assured the public that the U.S. promised nothing in return for the pair’s release.

Bill Richardson returned to the U.S. as a hero and was in the media spotlight, but, his statements about Saddam Hussein changed immensely and he made many jokes about the Iraqi president.

During the negotiations, Richardson crossed his legs and had the bottom of one shoe pointing right at Saddam, who left the room and returned to see Richardson with both feet on the floor. Saddam’s aides explained to Richardson that the bottom of a shoe was one of the gravest insults in the Arab world. A similar effect would occur if someone negotiating with the U.S. president held his middle finger aloft during the conversation. When Saddam returned, the negotiations continued. He was gracious enough to leave the room and allow his assistants to quickly explain this aspect of Arab culture to the congressman.

When interviewed by PBS, Richardson mentioned the incident. Then he made fun of the affair and said he thought his life may have been in danger and that his Iraqi hosts may have imprisoned and tortured him for the gaffe. Richardson and the program host laughed and made fun of the Iraqis.

Over the next few years, Richardson made many disparaging remarks about Saddam Hussein:

• "This allowed Iraq to starve its own people and blame the sanctions for their suffering. Under the oil-for-food program, we have taken this excuse away from Saddam." (March 1999)
• " … and multilateral sanctions are central to our efforts to contain Saddam." (March 1999)
• "But I also believe it is important that Saddam’s oil revenues be used to relieve the suffering of the Iraqi people rather than by Saddam Hussein for his own criminal purposes." (December 2002)
• "Well, Saddam Hussein, you can never predict what he is going to do, but it is obvious that he is going to put his foot forward; he is going to say, ‘We have no illegal weapons.’" (December 2002)

Very few national leaders would have released two convicted spies with nothing to show in return. There were no "thanks, Saddam" messages coming from the U.S. Instead, Iraq received more threats and many denigrating remarks from the person who visited the country to secure the release of the two prisoners. Until the obvious became clear, Richardson maintained that Iraq had stockpiles of doomsday military equipment.

One aspect of this scenario was not put in place until long after Richardon’s visit to Iraq. While he was negotiating with Saddam Hussein, cinemas, bus stops, schools and other venues were being blown up in Baghdad by terrorists. The perpetrators were eventually caught. They were members of the CIA-backed Iraqi National Accord (INA), a group of Iraqi exiles who attempted to create chaos in Baghdad in an effort to ripen discord and sow the seeds for a coup against Saddam Hussein and the Ba’ath government.

The leader of the exile group was Ayad Allawi, who later became a U.S.-appointed prime minister of Iraq. By the time the terrorist attacks in Baghdad were thwarted, about 150 Iraqi civilians were killed. This reign of terrorism was financed and supported by the U.S. administration.

While Iraqi civilians were being killed by a U.S.-sponsored program, Richardson gained the release of two U.S. prisoners held in Iraq. The current version of Western history of this time makes Saddam Hussein look like the bad guy and Richardson the good guy. The facts contradict the history.

There was one moment in which Saddam Hussein claimed verbal victory over Richardson. Laura Blumenfeld wrote an article, "A Little Diplomacy Goes a Long Way," for the Washington Post of December 13, 1996. She stated:

WHAT DID APRIL SAY?

We are approaching the 19^th anniversary of the infamous meeting between April Glaspie, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, and Saddam Hussein on July 25, 1990. Sadly, this incident has been virtually eliminated from the history of Iraq-U.S. relations. After the cease-fire agreement between the U.S. and Iraq in February 1991, some media attention was given, but that quickly disappeared.

April Glaspie met with Saddam Hussein on July 25, 1990 to discuss the future of Kuwait and Iraq.

Before we discuss her meeting, let’s look at background information that led to the point where Iraq was on the verge of invading its Arab neighbor to the south. For many years, the country known as Kuwait was culturally, geographically, racially and economically a part of the area known as Iraq today. Iraq has been identified by different names over the centuries and has been a part of various empires, but present-day Kuwait was always a province of Basra, the southernmost component of Iraq.

In the early part of the 20^th century, the British laid the boundaries that led to the current Middle East. Many of those overran traditional cultures and identities, making the area a hotbed of violence from then until the beginning of the 21^st century. Today, it looks like the conflicts created by these borders may yet spill over into the next century. The Kuwaiti-Iraqi border created hostility and mistrust. Despite the British placing of stooges in power in Iraq during their 20^th century occupation of the country, two of the quisling governments protested the status of Kuwait as an independent country.

Until 1990, the Ba’ath government of Iraq and the emirate of Kuwait held an uneasy truce. At times, both countries experienced amiable relations, but at others, there was an aloofness. The common denominator was that both were populated by Arabs and both used this brotherhood to keep peace.

In 1980, Iran and Iraq went to war. The two countries fought a bloody eight-year conflict that ended in a stalemate. Iran wanted to spread its own Islamic revolution throughout the Middle East and Iraq was the only country in the area that could stop the territorial designs of Iran. Iraq was the buffer that stopped the countries of the Arabian Peninsula, including Kuwait, from falling into Iranian hands. Unlike the hostile attitude of neighboring countries brought on by U.S. intervention in the area, during the 1980s, Iraq’s Arab neighbors stood solidly behind the country that was sacrificing its soldiers to keep the independence of Gulf Arabian countries. In the 1990s, with forceful persuasion by the U.S., countries like Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Qatar, and others turned against their former ally. Kuwait, with much U.S. assistance, was the first to betray Iraq and others followed. Some, however, such as Yemen and Jordan, kept cordial relations with Iraq because the people of these countries forced their leaders not to ostracize the Iraqis.

By the end of the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq’s economy had been greatly weakened. The incidents leading to Desert Storm began to emerge.

Kuwait lent money to Iraq during the war. The money was allocated for the defense of Kuwait, as well as that of Iraq, and the Iraqi government did not expect to be hard-pressed to repay the loans after the hostilities ended, especially because much of the money was used in thwarting Iran from invading Kuwait.

Soon after the cease-fire, Kuwait demanded repayment. Saddam Hussein was shocked that Kuwait would apply so much pressure after his country had spent eight bloody years defending Kuwait from Iranian aggression. When Iraq attempted to discuss the matter of repayment with Kuwait, the Kuwaitis became ever more insistent about immediate remission. The Iraqis knew at that time that the CIA and Kuwait had already instituted measures to further undermine the Iraqi economy, yet they did not realize the severity and progress of those plans.

After Iraq crossed the Kuwaiti border on August 2, 1990, many aspects of this anti-Iraq scheme came out in the open. The Iraqis found a copy of a letter dated November 22, 1989 and marked "Top Secret and Private" that was sent by Brigadier Ahmed Al Fahd (Director General of the State Security Department of Kuwait) to Sheikh Salem Al Sabah Al Sabah (Minister of the Interior of Kuwait). The letter mentions the coalition of the CIA and the Kuwaiti government and their plans to undermine the Iraqi economy. Here are a few highlights:

This letter proved the Iraqi allegations of a definite U.S. plan to keep Iraq’s economy weak so Kuwait could benefit. The release of this letter put a different look on the events of August 2, 1990 and the following few months. Iraq did not enter Kuwait simply to stake claim to Kuwait’s oil. It did so to stop Kuwait and the U.S. from permanently damaging its economy.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz quickly spread the word about the U.S.-Kuwait collusion, but the agenda was written by Bush I and barely a peep was heard about the damning evidence. The world was hearing about "naked aggression" and "another Hitler." In an October 24, 1990 letter to the United Nations, Aziz highlighted the actions of the U.S. and Kuwait that led to the eventual occupation of Kuwait by Iraq. Many crucial points are brought up, so it is important to publish the entire letter:

Months before the beginning of Desert Storm, Tariq Aziz had exposed Kuwait’s duplicity. Instead of looking at the facts, however, much of the world allowed George Bush I to revamp them and portray a different scenario — one in which the Iraqis invaded Kuwait for no reason other than greed and the acquisition of Kuwaiti oil. Logic would tear holes in this assessment. Iraq already had the world’s second-largest oil reserves, so it did not need to grab those of Kuwait. Iraq’s economic existence had been threatened by the U.S. and Kuwait, but it seemed no one was listening.

In 1989, another strange scenario emerged. Iraq began to lose oil from its wells in the Rumailah oil fields, located in the Iraq/Kuwait border area. Iraq discovered that the Kuwaitis had installed a slant drilling operation on the border, enabling them to drill under the boundary and steal Iraqi oil. At the time, the Iraqi government assessed the oil losses at $2.7 billion, but after discovering the enormity of the operation, losses were re-assessed to about $14 billion. The stealing of Iraqi oil was well-documented by Iraq. On July 15, 1990, Tariq Aziz, in a letter to the Secretary of the Arab League, described the theft in detail.

Because of the cooperative relationship between Kuwait and Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam Hussein was aghast at the Kuwaiti’s change of heart once the hostilities ceased. Iraq began to find pieces of the puzzle and put them together. The findings were corroborated after August 2, 1990 when the Iraqis found evidence in Kuwait, such as the top secret letter previously mentioned.

Prior to August 2, 1990, the Iraqis had enough facts to present to the Arab world showing Kuwaiti involvement in undermining their economy. To Iraq, this was the beginning of a U.S. intrusion into the area that would not be reversed once put into action. In a speech in Amman, Jordan on February 24, 1990, Saddam Hussein told those assembled of the imminent danger of allowing the U.S. to become involved in regional affairs. (See Appendix XII of the book The Mother of All Battles: The Endless U.S.-Iraq War for the entire speech.) Remember, at the time, the Soviet Union was in existence and was considered a world superpower. The Iraqi president stated:

Despite this ominous prediction, the Arab world did not take much notice. Most of the countries in the region could not envisage a permanent U.S. presence that would dictate U.S. policy to them. Events since 1990, much to the chagrin of regional Arab countries, proved Saddam Hussein’s statement accurate. Today, countries such as Qatar and Kuwait are virtual U.S. possessions.

Kuwait, despite the wishes of its oil-producing partners in OPEC, began to pump much more oil than its agreed quota, bringing the price of oil down on world markets. Every time Kuwait’s actions forced a decrease in the price of oil, Iraq lost millions, if not billions, of dollars, further eroding its economy.

The situation became more tense and Saddam Hussein called for a meeting with April Glaspie, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq. On July 25, 1990, they met and Saddam explained his country’s plight to her. He discussed Kuwait’s breaking of OPEC agreements and that his country was in desperate need of money to help rebuild its infrastructure that was damaged in the eight-year Iran-Iraq War. (See Appendix I of The Mother of All Battles for the full transcript.)

After listening, Glaspie then assured Saddam that the U.S. was on Iraq’s side and that the U.S. was in sync with the desires of Iraq to rebuild. She explained:

Saddam Hussein then complained that the U.S. was blocking most orders his government had placed with the U.S. He said:

Those words were quite prophetic. After Desert Storm, with a full embargo in place, Iraq could not import food, so it had to create more agriculturally-based business. In June 1992, U.S. military jets, with their afterburners, destroyed 23 Iraqi wheat fields.

Getting back to the Saddam Hussein-April Glaspie meeting, she responded to Saddam’s complaints about lack of access to American markets with, "I have a direct instruction from the president to seek better relations with Iraq."

The U.S. administration maintained that it was Iraq’s business and not that of the U.S. in the matter of Iraq’s dispute with Kuwait. On July 26, 1990, the day after the Saddam-Glaspie meeting, Margaret Tutweiler, U.S. Department of State spokesperson was asked by the press, "Has the United States sent any type of diplomatic message to the Iraqis about putting 30,000 troops on the border of Kuwait? Has there been any type of protest communicated from the United States government?" She replied, "I’m entirely unaware of any such protest."

On July 31, 1990, John Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, testified to Congress that the "United States has no commitment to defend Kuwait and the U.S. has no intention of defending Kuwait if it is attacked by Iraq."

These messages are not ambiguous, but they were false. Bush had plans ready to destroy Iraq and the crossing of the Iraq-Kuwait border was an appropriate excuse to implement Bush’s designs.

During the war propaganda buildup of the next few months, the subject of the Saddam-Glaspie meeting was kept under wraps. Few Americans knew of the incident. Adding to the intrigue, Glaspie seemingly disappeared. From August 4, 1990 until May 1991, no government official mentioned her or could account for her whereabouts. A few reporters worked up the nerve to ask, but they were ignored.

In May 1991, April Glaspie appeared before the U.S. Senate. Questions were not asked about where she had been for the prior nine months, and the public will probably never know. During her report to the Senate, she told of warning Saddam Hussein not to take action against Kuwait. Most of the senators believed her because she alleged that the transcripts of her meeting with Saddam were altered by the Iraqi government. (The CIA admitted that the transcripts were accurate and that Glaspie had not issued such a statement to Saddam Hussein.) After her testimony, the Senate virtually granted Glaspie hero status.

In July 1991, Senators Clayborne Pell of Rhode Island and Alan Cranston of California came up with a totally different scenario from the one Glaspie presented. They read the contents of secret messages from Glaspie to the U.S. government and assessed that Glaspie blatantly lied to the U.S. Senate.

Pell and Cranston appeared on national television and called Glaspie’s testimony deceitful and shameful. They vowed to get to the bottom of the incident, all the time lambasting Glaspie and her testimony before the Senate. Pell and Cranston announced that they were putting the machinery in motion for a full investigation to begin in September 1991. By mid-October, there was no word of an investigation.

On October 11, 1991, I called Senator Cranston’s office in Washington D.C. When I asked about the impending investigation, there was silence. After a brief pause, I was hesitatingly told that they knew nothing about it and I was advised to call the Foreign Affairs Committee.

I took the recommendation of Cranston’s office and called the committee. After I gave a brief description of the incident, I asked, "Is there any information available?" The woman, who would not identify herself, snapped "Nope!" After a moment’s pause, she tersely added, "There was a meeting scheduled and then postponed indefinitely." Then, she abruptly hung up.

Somehow, the administration squashed the only chance we had of learning the truth behind the Glaspie affair. The question that will never be publicly addressed and answered is: "Did April Glaspie give Saddam Hussein a green light for invading Kuwait out of incompetence (i.e. was the Arab-Arab statement her own?) or was she instructed to say that by the U.S. administration?"

April Glaspie is a shady character at best. According to the U.S. administration, in 1992, she accepted a position at the University of San Diego. Her phone number was listed, yet there never was an answer when it was called, and, there was no answering machine.

In June 1993, the U.S. involvement in Somalia turned from a "humanitarian" mission to one that attempted to capture the newly-demonized Mohammed Aidid. There was much bloodshed. Shortly before the public denigration of Aidid, Glaspie was re-assigned to Somalia. She wrote the new script.

Soon after the Somalia debacle, Glaspie again disappeared, only to turn up in the Rwanda area, where the slaughtering of more than a million people was just getting underway. Prior to her stint in Iraq, Glaspie was stationed in Lebanon during that country’s bitter and bloody civil war. Is the fact that Glaspie happens to appear in areas in which there is violence shortly after her debut a matter of chance, or, possibly the prelude to destruction?

ASTRONOMY ANSWERS MANY QUESTIONS

Throughout humankind’s existence, the sky has always played an important role. Until about 10,000 years ago, humans were baffled by the sky. They understood little about the stars and planets and were mostly scared by items that depicted quick change, such as eclipses, meteors, or comets.

When humans began to form civilizations and to record their existence, the sky took on new dimensions. The peoples of the Middle East watched the stars and, although still superstitious, began to notice that certain positions of stars and planets would indicate certain times of the year with regularity. They realized that the annual re-emergence of some constellations indicated it was time to plant crops. Other constellations heralded he beginning of a rainy season or a dry season. In other words, the beginning of astronomy had occurred.

Centuries after the beginning of astronomy, another of humankind’s inventions occurred that became a major opponent of astronomy — monotheistic religion. The story of the sky began to change. Comets were bad omens. So were solar or lunar eclipses. Meteor showers were heralded as ominous threats to humankind. Today, we understand that a comet is nothing more than a bunch of ice and rock that orbits the Sun. Meteorites are pieces of iron, rock or silicon that occasionally fall to Earth. And, the dastardly eclipses are caused either by the Earth’s shadow blocking the moon’s image, or the moon blocking the Sun’s image.

We must remember that the almost two-millennia practice of ignorance of the sky was not always so. Prior to the advent of monotheism, much progress had been made in the field of astronomy by ancient cultures. For instance, archaeologists have found depictions from ancient Babylon that show Jupiter and four of its moons. No person has eyesight so keen that he/she could see even one of Jupiter’s moons without a telescope. The telescope’s invention was not credited, however, until almost 5,000 years after the drawings were made in Babylon. Many scientists today believe that the ancient Babylonians had invented a basic telescope.

In the year 1581 BCE, a lunar eclipse traveled though the Middle East. There is a clay tablet that commemorated this eclipse (see picture at beginning of article). The message on the tablet was scientific, not mythical. In addition to reporting a lunar eclipse, the ancient Babylonians could predict these events with accuracy.

Let’s talk about electricity. Archaeologists have found that electricity was used to plate coins over 5,000 years ago in Baghdad, Iraq. In China, at about the same time, the same electricity had been discovered and put into making crude batteries.

Once Christianity gained a foothold in society, the Church tried alter science to fit its theology. True science was declared the enemy. Judeo-Christian pseudo-science became standard fare for more than a millennium.

In 394 A.D., Christian activists burned the libraries and museums in Alexandria, Egypt. In these institutions was most of the world’s knowledge, including scientific, that had been gathered over the centuries from many countries and cultures. It has been estimated that about 90% of the world’s knowledge, including astronomy, went up in smoke. It took almost 1,500 years for the world to regain knowledge that already existed at one time — knowledge in the fields of astronomy, science, anatomy, architecture, plumbing, public works, etc.

According to the fifth book of Historia Ecclesiastica:

In ridding the world of "pagan" ideas, the Church eliminated thousands of years of knowledge. Christianity now had an open hand at keeping the western world ignorant of science for the next millennium.

Astronomy turned into astrology. Any legitimate research was a thing of the past. Comets, eclipses and meteors reverted to a "bad omen" status.

In the 16^th and 17^th centuries, real research again came forward. However, those who crossed the line of Church doctrine were put out of business. Galileo had to renounce his findings to save his life.

Prior to the re-invention of the telescope in the early 17^th century, a flurry of astronomers began to see the overall picture. They used mathematics an what they could see with the naked eye to enhance knowledge. At the time, they were not interested in challenging the Church, but only to further astronomical knowledge. It was proven and finally accepted that the Earth was not the center of the universe, but, it was still blasphemy to state that the Earth was not at the center of our solar system. That information would take longer to emerge, although some astronomers were quietly hinting this as a fact.

Many of us today are under the assumption that the great scientists of these times were atheistic, but that’s not true. Most were attempting to combine their religious faith with science. For instance, Sir Isaac Newton is credited with discovering the laws of gravity. He had a few predecessors who came close, but it was Newton whose theory of gravity became known as the most accurate.

Contrary to what one may think, Newton was a very religious man. He wrote millions of words on biblical subjects and was intrigued by Hebrew scripture.

Recently, some of Newton’s lesser-known works have come forward that show he predicted the end of the Earth in the year 2060. He made his calculations based on the Bible. Researchers admit that there are still thousands of volumes of Newton’s works that have yet to be scrutinized. Despite his prolific scientific work, Newton still embraced religion in his research and findings.

The re-discovery of the telescope changed astronomy forever. Astronomers were able to see the physical characteristics of planets as well as their moons. The could now see nebulae and multiple stars. They also saw things they could not explain, but the telescope was the one instrument that heralded the beginning of making sense of the universe.

By the beginning of the 20^th century, the knowledge of astronomy was astute, although still not as comprehensive as today’s standards. The Church had been inundated with too much information to keep saying that the Earth was flat, or that the Earth was at the center of the solar system. Despite new evidence, however, the Church still denied many reasons for what astronomy observed.

In 1923, a discovery was made that irreversibly changed the way we look at the universe. Prior to this new discovery, astronomers had figured out much about the solar system and its movements. They knew that our solar system was but a small portion of the universe. They even knew that our solar system lies near an edge of the Milky Way galaxy, not at its center. But, they thought the Milky Way was the entire universe.

Larger telescopes were being introduced. Some showed unidentified dots of light just beyond the edge of the Milky Way. At first, astronomers considered these specks to be wayward stars or nebulae that were on the outskirts of our galaxy, making them appear to be on the edge of the universe as well.

That vision was shattered in 1923. Astronomers came to the conclusion that these items were other galaxies. Since then, with the advent of even newer and more powerful equipment, billions more galaxies have been discovered. Almost overnight, the size of the known universe increased a trillion-fold.

Today, we know that the Milky Way is an average-sized galaxy in a universe with billions of similar galaxies. Our galaxy, like billions of others, consists of billions of stars. It is about 100 million light years wide, making it an average galaxy consisting mostly of average stars.

Despite all the advances, it was not until the 1990s that a real opening came for seeing the entire universe and its history. The Hubble telescope has been in the forefront of these findings. In addition, recent technology has made it possible for land-based telescopes and others in space to equal the Hubble instrument in their observations.

We have seen the science fiction movies about life in other parts of the universe — the green men with long tentacles, or robot-like beings, etc. However, many people, including astronomers, had concluded that the Earth, with its life-sustaining environment, is a one-time fluke in the universe. Plus, many religions have always stated that life in unique to Earth.

This conclusion is now quickly changing. Since the 1980s, various astronomers have predicted that some stars may have planetary systems. But, this was still only speculation.

Then, in the late 1990s, the first planet orbiting a star outside our solar system was discovered. Then another. And another. Currently, hundreds of stars outside our solar system have been identified and named. New ones pop up almost daily.

It is now known that the vast majority of stars, including our own Sun, are formed in the same manner. After their formation, they spew gases and chemicals into space and his debris collides and forms planets. It is speculated that most stars have planetary systems. Many top astronomers and scientists now conclude that with trillions and trillions of stars experiencing a similar beginning and end, and most with a planetary accompaniment, that life is common in the universe. One British astronomer stated, "Life is probably as common as muck."

Because of the vast differences involved in the universe, we may never encounter intelligent life. Theoretically, the speed of light is the fastest speed possible, making it virtually impossible for other intelligent life to communicate with Earth. If a star is a million light years away from Earth, it is considered close to our planet. And, if a civilization had figured out the technology to travel at the speed of light, it would take a million years just to reach Earth. Life probably is common, yet our species may never find out what other creatures in the universe look like.

Life, however, is not restricted to what we know as intelligent life. Basic forms of life appeared on Earth over two billion years ago in the guise of bacteria. These bacteria, after millions and millions of years, became the building blocks of other life forms. So, there may be life in the form of bacteria in non-Earthly settings that we do have a chance of discovering.

The subject of life on the planet Mars has always held humankind’s curiosity. After we first saw close-up detailed pictures of the planet, it was assumed that it was a huge dead rock.

Recently, the subject of life on Mars has taken on a new life. NASA’s Mars Odyssey space probe showed gullies on that planet that could have been etched by melting snow. Astronomers are now of the opinion that much snow may have existed on Mars at one time and, when it melted, it left these huge gullies.

"Snow acts as a miniature greenhouse and provides a wonderful abode for life," said Philip Christensen of Arizona State University. He added, "Imagine an environment where there is sunlight. There are temperatures above those of freezing liquid water. All of those make a potential for life."

Let’s go to current findings about our universe. The conclusion of a NASA probe five years ago that looked back to almost the beginning of the universe showed that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. Before this conclusion, the age of the universe was measured at between 12 and 15 billion years. However, the NASA probe is precise in its assessment. Every time a space project takes on the task of determining the age of the universe, the results become more specific.

Astronomers call these findings a passage from speculation to precision. The data strongly confirm the "big bang" theory. They also show that the first stars were formed only 200 years after the big bang, not from 500 million to two billion years, as was previously thought. In addition, the movement of the early universe has solved another problem; that of the end of the universe. The scientific community was split into two camps; those who said the universe would expand indefinitely leading to a cold, lifeless universe, and those who maintained that the universe would implode in a chaotic and fiery ending. The former theory was proven correct in the recent study. The universe will expand indefinitely until it becomes so cold that everything will end up as chunks of ice or rock.

There have been distinct findings in astronomy that changed the way we looked at the universe. They include the invention of the telescope and the discovery that the Milky Way is not the entire universe, among others. Almost daily, we are being told of new discoveries, some mundane and minor, and others virtually Earth-shattering.

Not only can we discover knowledge about our cosmic neighbors with astronomy, but we know much more about the Earth. Satellite photography has made it possible to predict weather much more precisely. It also has given us knowledge of plate tectonics that we can use to predict future changes in the Earth.

What does the Church think of such information? I have not heard Pope Benedict speak much of the subject. However, a few years ago, he said that human beings did not evolve from apes. He added that anyone who thinks so is part of a vast "atheistic conspiracy." A little more than 16 centuries ago, it was the pagans whom the Church blamed for putting bad ideas into humans’ heads. Today, atheists hold the same place as pagans did in 394. At least the Church is consistent in its illogic.

Science is the best tool for making sense of life. It is not perfect, but it is the best we have.

ANOTHER GRAND ILLUSION

The United States hates Iran and is trying every way possible to unseat its government and possibly attack and invade the country. The recent emergence of street demonstrations shows the Iranian people are fed up and want a revolution and create a government that allows its people freedom.

If you believe the preceding sentences, it is sad to see how easily you are duped and how little you know about history.

I think a statement that I have made many times is much closer to reality:

Without delving too far into history, I’ll give a short background to Iran and Iraq relations since the Iran Revolution of 1979.

The revolution was not conducted by Islamists alone. It included millions of people taking to the street whose goal was to rid Iran of the Shah and a kingdom. The participants included socialists, communists, freedom-loving Iranians, workers, peasants, and others, as well as Islamists. All worked toward the same goal.

When Khomeini returned to Iran, the revolution took on a different look. Once the Shah left, Khomeini consolidated his supporters and became the leader of the revolution. Shortly after, there was a purge of socialists, communists and secularists, the same people who began the chain of events that led to Khomeini’s rise.

Iraq tried on many occasions to sit down with the new Iranian government, that by now had turned into a theocracy. They wanted to draw guidelines for a new mutual beneficial relationship between the two nations in which each country would not interfere in the affairs of the other, but would cooperate in the fields of business and diplomacy. Iran rejected these overtures.

According to a report issued by the Iraqi Embassy in Washington D.C. in 1985:

Despite all the bravado of the U.S. and Israel about being Iran’s enemies, the trio soon began to work behind closed doors. The ultimate goal for the U.S. was to acquire the return of its hostages held in Iran and Israel had a chance to help further advance tensions between Iran and Iraq in the hope of weakening Iraq, an Arab nation that was challenging Israel’s hegemony in the Middle East.

Plans evolved to sell U.S.-made weapons to Iran, with Israel being the broker and earning its 10% agent fee.

Various proposals were put forth, but Khomeini made the final decision. A group of Iranian officials would make the necessary arrangements for U.S. spare parts and eventually missiles and helicopters. And, the person who became the main player for Iran was none other than the current hero of the world’s misled public that thinks he is trying to change Iran’s political makeup: Mir-Hossein Mosavi. According to an article, "Iran Divided and the ‘October Surprise,’" by Robert Parry that was published on June 24, 2009:

The U.S. continued to supply Iran with weapons that killed Iraqis throughout the entire Iran-Iraq War. Some people point to the now-famous picture of Saddam shaking hands with assistant U.S. Secretary of Defense, Don Rumseld, in December 1983 and say this is proof that the U.S. supported Iraq during the war. Rumsfeld’s trip to Baghdad was not to enhance Iraq’s military machine. It was to discuss the diplomatic relationship between Iraq and the U.S. While Saddam and Rumsfeld were posing for the photo, U.S.-made missiles were killing Iraqis, civilian and military alike.

In fact, the history revisionists, mostly from the left, state that the U.S. supplied Iraq with much weaponry during the war. This is another bit of propaganda fed to them so they can distribute it to their "liberal" followers. The truth differs. During the Iran-Iraq War, the U.S. supplied Iraq with about $200 million worth of military equipment, mostly helicopters. China and France each supplied more than $5 billion worth of military equipment, closely followed by the Soviet Union who made sales of about $4.8 billion. Iraqi spent billions of dollars with the U.S. during this time, but most was for civilian goods.

Many reasons have been given for the Iran-Iraq War. Pundits have written many pages of theories. However, most did not hit the mark, especially those since 1990 that have accused Iraq of being the aggressor. The 1985 report from the Iraqi Embassy in Washington D.C. explains the basis for the war quite precisely:

After the cease-fire between the U.S. and Iraq was signed in 1991, supposedly ending hostilities, an uprising occurred in the south of Iraq. From that time until today, we hear that this was a spontaneous insurgency powered by Iraqis who wanted freedom from the Ba’ath government. This is another swerve. The violence began when Iranian agents crossed the border of Iraq and organized the violence. We hear of the brutal putting down of the insurgents by the Iraqi government, yet he never hear of the Iranian-backed Shia butchers who slaughtered many Iraqis. In Basra, multitudes of Iraqi civilians were beheaded by masked henchmen. At the time, photos emerged of them with their scythe-like instruments decapitating people tied to tables. Eventually, the Iraqi government had the situation under control.

A close Iraqi-American friend of mine at the time asked, "What was Saddam supposed to do? Kiss them on the cheek?"

While the fighting was at its heaviest, we saw videos on TV in the U.S. of large protests in Baghdad. Pete Williams, the White House spokesman at the time said, "Demonstrations in Iraq are rare. It looks like the people are upset with the government." The protestors held signs in Arabic, therefore, most Americans had no clue of what they said. My aforementioned friend told me, "The signs were asking the government to put down the Shia uprising." Again, we saw a major twisting of the facts.

In 1991, every Iraqi knew that Iran was behind the hostilities in the south. The "person on the street" was well aware of this fact. Even the Iraqi-Americans living in San Diego, California, were knowledgeable of this.

In 2003, many Iranians flocked to Iraq, following the footsteps of the U.S. They took no time in implementing training for death squads in Iraq to attack whom they considered "undesirables." Along with the Iranians, came Iraqis who had lived in exile in Iran for years. Many became part of the new "government."

Almost immediately, Iranian agents or Iranian sympathizers in Iraq began tracking down former pilots who fought with the Iraqi Air Force during the Iran-Iraq War. A lot of information on the whereabouts of these veterans was supplied by the U.S. It has been estimated that between 800 and 2,000 retired pilots were executed. I personally know three Iraqi-Americans whose uncles were assassinated.

All the bluster we have heard from Iran about the "little Satan (Israel)" and the "great Satan (the U.S.)," is as phony as any Hollywood fiction presentation. The same is true for the other side: both the U.S. and Israel have collaborated with Iran in the killing of thousands of Iraqis.

Let’s get current. Anti-war groups are holding candlelight vigils in the U.S. in support of the Iranian protestors. In the misled minds of the leftists, Iran is undergoing a revolution that has challenged the system in Iran.

Nothing is further from the truth. The protestors are complaining about election fraud, not the system. In 2000, in the U.S., we had thousands protest the rigged election of George Bush. Why did not international journalists call this a revolution against the system? It wasn’t, just as the protests in Iran are not the beginning of a revolution. The only Iranians who oppose the theocracy and want a secular government do not reside in Iran. They are scattered in various countries, with many residing in Paris. Inside Iran, they have no support.

The New York Times ran an article on July 5, 2009, called "Leading Activists Defy Ayatollah on Iran Elections." It describes a maverick group inside the government called the Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qum. According to the article:

The most militant opposition group in Iran mentions nothing about changing the system. It only puts forth gripes against election fraud. And, it glorifies Iranians who killed Iraqis.

Even today, Iranian sympathizers in Iraq are targeting segments of the Iraqi population. Iran’s pogrom against Iraqi Arabs continues, as does the support of the U.S. and Israel.

After the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam Hussein offered an amnesty to Iraqis (mainly a portion of the Kurdish population and the radical Shia element in the south) who fought on the side of Iran. Unfortunately, the Iranians did not reciprocate. Not only did they go after Iranians who fought for Iraq, they have massacred Iraqis who fought for Iraq.

I realize that it is a suspension of disbelief on my part, but it would be great for the anti-war people and those of the left in the U.S. who are calling the events in Iran a great revolution to research history and see what is really happening. Iraqi lives were worth nothing to the U.S. citizenry from 1990 on, and the attitude still prevails. I will use a U.S. colloquialism for those "human rights" advocates who pretend to want to help the plight of the oppressed, but when it comes to Iraq are silent. They are people with paper assholes.

SORRY, IT’S THE WRONG PAUL

The pope is now claiming another milestone in the history of the Roman Catholic Church: the remains of St. Paul have been discovered. According to an article in The Guardian, "Pope Claims Human Remains Belong to St. Paul, published on June 29, 2009:

The use of the words "unanimous" and "uncontested" seem quite curious. I am no expert on biblical history, but I am sure that many people have questioned the validity of the statement made by the pope (who is named after a method of cooking eggs). Plus, I find it quite odd that he gave legitimacy to the carbon-14 dating method, one which in the past, has been refuted by many Catholic officials. Normally, a carbon-14 dating shows the errors in the Vatican’s version of history. But, this time, because it may show a similar time-line, the scientific method is used as proof. Also, I wonder how these could be attributed to one man who created a legend, when in Rome between the first and second centuries, millions of people died and their remains, in many cases, are still visible.

My questioning of the statement by the CEO of the Catholic Church led me to conduct more research into the matter. I called in some markers of people whom I have helped in the past.

With all the information I have received, I must conclude that Benedict has mis-identified the remains. The name Paul is the same, but the individuals are different.

According to my sources, the location of the bones indicate that they came from a famous area of Rome in which street vendors sold their goods. Most sold the normal tourist stuff: statues of Roman gods and goddesses as well as replicas of the Coliseum. But, one Jewish vendor changed the trade and expanded its depth: Paul Goldberg.

He began to sell replica Christian crosses and Jewish Stars of David. His business went through the roof. Eventually, he traveled to Iberia, where the minimum wage was considerably lower than that of Rome and farmed the work out to the Iberians.

But, Goldberg was not totally satisfied with his new venture. He began the first off-Coliseum betting business in the world. When the gladiators were scheduled for fights-to-death, he listed odds outside the Coliseum and many people wagered with or against the posted odds.

When the makeup of the fights changed to the Christians vs. the lions, Goldberg changed his methods and posted the odds of how long the Christians would last before they were eaten. Unlike the previous combat at the Coliseum in which there was a question about who would win, the lions always won, so he devised the new system of time endured. Goldberg was a benevolent person and he donated 20% of the takings to the families of the Christians for burial.

Finally, Goldberg found a business venture that gave him a much larger clientele than those who visited the Coliseum. He carved statements in rocks that became very popular with Romans, who bought them and had their slaves carry them to put in front of their houses. Once a neighbor saw one of these, he had to have one himself. Popular statements were: "Rome, Love it or Leave it," and "We Support the Legions."

Goldberg died a rich man whom the Romans adored. The recent discovery of his bones has created a resurrection of Goldbergism in Rome.

Goldberg was an innovator who passed his genes along to successive generations. In fact, the 20^th century’s greatest engineer and inventor, Rube Goldberg, is a descendant of the 78^th generation of Paul Goldberg.

I implore the pope to allow Goldberg’s bones to rest in pieces.

Many countries have one or two days a year that indicate a national tragedy. In the U.S., December 7, 1941, the day the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, is labeled a "day of infamy." Almost 60 years later, September 11, 2001 surpassed December 7 as a rallying cry for U.S. solidarity.

Iraq, a country much smaller than the U.S., and never as large a player on the international scene, can claim several days of infamy: January 17, 1991 (the beginning of Desert Storm); February 14, 1991 (the destruction of the Amiryah Bomb Shelter); March 20, 2003 (the start of the U.S. illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq); and April 9, 2003, (U.S. forces enter Baghdad) among others. But, one date that gains little international attention is imbedded in the hearts and minds of most Iraqis: June 26, 1993.

On that date, the U.S. military, under the command of Bill Clinton, ordered 23 Tomahawk guided missiles to demolish the headquarters of the Mukhabarat, the Iraqi intelligence services, in central Baghdad. Twenty of the missiles hit the agency complex, while "only" three missed their targets.

A jubilant Clinton took to the airwaves and proclaimed victory. He was happy that only three missed their mark. One could think he was addressing the public about the score of a sporting event.

Of the three that missed, one destroyed the home of Layla al-Attar, killing her and her husband, and blinding her daughter.

Layla al-Attar was the director of the Iraqi National Art Museum and a leading Arab artist who was revered in Iraq much the same as Norman Rockwell was in the U.S. In addition, she was a spokesperson for international peace, for the inner peace of women, and for resistance against U.S. hegemony. Layla al-Attar symbolized Iraq.

When news of al-Attar’s death broke, Iraq mourned. A special person who transcended political ideology and represented all of humankind had been assassinated.

During the Gulf War, her home was almost totally destroyed by U.S. missiles. Two years later, shortly after the completion of the house’s reconstruction, an "errant" missile finished the job that its cousin had only partially performed in earlier years.

Although never proven, it is quite easy to give credence to the theory that Layla al-Attar was the target of a missile, not merely a casualty of "collateral damage" from a misguided projectile. Every Iraqi believes she was marked, but shortly after her execution, the rest of the world forgot.

Outside the Arab world, Layla al-Attar was on the verge of becoming a top international artist. European art galleries were beginning to highlight her work. In the U.S., however, she was little known. Little international outrage was heard when she was killed.

The reason behind the attack was as bogus as any given during the Bush I years. Clinton stated that information was in-hand that showed Iraqi operatives were behind an aborted assassination attempt on former President George Bush in April 1993 at a ceremony praising him in Kuwait. Clinton added that Saddam Hussein ordered the attempt on Bush’s life. At the last minute, those who were to carry out the attack were apprehended and Clinton had to teach the Iraqis a lesson.

The big lie still persisted. Those arrested were merely drug and alcohol smugglers. In the aftermath of the June 26 missile attack, one-by-one the mythical would-be assassins were released from Kuwaiti jails, but, the U.S. media did not consider this information newsworthy. It was not as exciting as assassination plots and missile attacks.

On November 1, 1993, the New Yorker published an article by Seymour Hersh titled "A Case Not Closed." In it, Hersh went into detail about the entire event and basically showed there was no validity to Clinton’s claim.

Why did Clinton order this attack? At the time, Republicans and pro-war Democrats criticized him for being "weak" on Iraq and other invisible threats against the U.S. Clinton had to earn respect. What better target than Iraq, a defenseless country that was isolated because of U.S. propaganda?

According to Hersh:

Over the years, many people have uttered, "Saddam tried to kill Bush’s father," in defense of Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq. In March 2008, the story took another turn as an unlikely organization admitted the plot was a hoax: the Pentagon.

The March 23, 2008 issue of Newsweek ran an article called "Saddam’s Files," written by Michael Isikoff. It stated:

Despite the Pentagon coming clean after 15 years of the public believing a myth about the nonexistent assassination attempt, not too much has changed in the perception and reporting of those times. In April 2008, weeks after the Pentagon announced the Kuwaiti hoax, the National Defense University, a quasi-government organization, published a report called Choosing War: The Decision to Invade Iraq and Its Aftermath," written by Colonel Joseph J. Collins, a retired U.S. Army officer.

Collins seemed to be writing about a fantasy scenario of Iraq. His assessments were not accurate and at times, differed greatly from the facts. One of them stated: "Since the Republicans had last been in power, Saddam had tried to assassinate the elder Bush." No one challenged Collins’ statement, despite the Pentagon’s earlier declaration. It appears that no matter how many people debunk this lie, it has a life of its own and will go down in history as fact.

Hersh was quite right in his assessment of picking on the weak. U.S. citizens take pride in the fact that their society scorns bullies who pick on defenseless adversaries. However, they contradict their own philosophy by cheering on the murdering of foreign civilians who are the weakest prey of all.

These cowardly actions transcend political allegiances in the U.S. Obama (remember, the anti-war candidate), condemned Iran’s actions in putting down demonstrations. On June 23, 2009, he told the press, "And we deplore violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place.'' On the same day, neews headlines read, "Deadly ‘Drone Attack’ Hits Pakistan." It appears that at least 40 Pakistani civilians were killed while at a funeral. Obama ordered the strike. It seems that Pakistanis, Iraqis and Afghanis don’t count. The lies and hypocrisy of the blood thirst of U.S. politicians, and many civilians, remain unabated.

NOT GOOD ENOUGH

With all the occurrences in Iran taking the world headlines, two cover-ups have taken a back seat to Iranian affairs. Once the situation in Iran becomes more complacent (most probabily because of punitive actions that will be taken by the clerics in charge of the country), the subject of the two masquerades will still be with us, only at a lower level of publicity.

The current administrations of the U.S. and Great Britain are stonewalling the issue of lying to the public of both nations about the reasons for going to war against Iraq in 2003. On both sides of the Atlantic, despite previous statements of an open discussion, Obama and Britain’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown, are holding under wraps information that could implicate many people in blatant war crimes activities.

Obama’s excuse is a great sham. He has stopped the publication of pictures of U.S. military personnel torturing Iraqis. In addition, he has blocked the issuing of memos that would implicate many in the bogus buildup to the March 2003 invasion. In Obama’s case, he is sheltering those who have been the most outspoken critics of his administration: neocon Republicans. All the time he has been keeping Dick Cheney from public scrutiny, Cheney has made public statements condemning Obama’s security measures. If Obama ever possessed a backbone, it has surely been a victim of atrophy since he took the oath of office in January 2009.

Gordon Brown is also keeping locked a public and open inquiry into British lies that led to the U.S.-Britain alliance in destroying Iraq. The British public, press, and politicians of all parties are asking for an in-depth report on the shenanigans the British government pulled in 2002 and 2003 to con the public into mildly accepting an invasion of Iraq.

It’s great that the public of the two nations want to know the truth. But, the reason for asking for an open look at these documents seems to be off-base. Most people say that an honest look at the period will help insure that something like this does not happen again.

Jonathan Steele wrote a brilliant article on the British cover-up on June 15, 2009 called "Skewed and in Secret, this Iraqi Inquiry Is a Scandal." He gives many details of Brown’s deceit. However, he concluded:

Despite Steele’s astute reporting on the subject, I find his statement, "The wider issue is to insure that Britain enters no such ‘war of choice’ again," to be flawed. It’s time to stop using the excuse that the truth will stop future illegal and despicable ventures. The reason for such inquiries should be to prove the guilt of those who created the situation and bring them to justice. Once this occurs, future leaders will have second thoughts about illegally attacking developing nations if they think they may swing from the end of a noose.

Take the cases of Bush and Blair and their cronies who took glee in killing more than a million Iraqis and destroying the nation’s history and culture in the 2003 invasion and occupation. Many have written their memoirs and are bragging of their activities. Something seems wrong here. The killers become heroes and the victims are buried in graves.

In most Western societies, if a person persuades someone to murder a family and the truth emerges, the one who prompted the person who pulled the trigger is just as responsible as the killer. In such instances, I have yet to read where a judge tells the killer and accomplice, "Well, we all learned from this lesson. Don’t do it again." Why can the law of the land of Britain and the U.S. be different for the elected leaders?

The excuse that we may learn from the experience and think twice before doing it again is bogus. Take Grenada, then Panama, then Iraq, then Somalia, then Serbia, then Iraqi again. People of the left, after the truth emerged from each military incursion, took pride in getting the word out and then became complacent thinking it would never happen again. The difference in each instance is that not only did it happen again, but it happened on a grander scale.

The press was irate when it was kept away from Grenada for days. "Never again," said media personnel. "Never again" occurred in Panama in 1989 and then in Iraq in 1991. The press kept complaining, yet did nothing about it.

Then, in 2003, the U.S. administration said that the press would be allowed to follow the action. What occurred was worse than having no press coverage. The "imbedded" reporters had to have their stories authorized by the U.S. military before they could post them. What we read about was the heroic U.S. military taking on the Iraqi savages and teaching them a lesson. Fortunately, a few independent journalists defied the U.S. ban on un-imbedded reporters and did give us some idea of the truth. But, most of their stories were rejected by the mainstream press because the U.S. administration warned them about printing "anti-American" stories. Plus, the U.S. bombed the offices of Al-Jazeera News in Afghanistan and Iraq. This was to make an example of media outlets the U.S. did not admire.

There is no excuse for saying that the main reason for the truth to emerge is to make sure the same does not happen again. It always does.

Currently, there are a few war crimes tribunals in operation, most concerning little-known individuals from tiny African republics. They do not have the same propaganda machine as the leaders of the Western nations.

When the world has in place an organization with teeth that would indict and insure the attendance in a court room of George Bush I and II, Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney, Madeleine Albright, Barack Obama, Don Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and many others who are accomplices to murder, we would see a complete turnaround in military actions. Maybe war would become obsolete. But, it is more likely to continue with the status quo. The last lines of the great movie, "The Grand Illusion," by Jean Renoir say it all. Two French POWs escaped a German World War I prison camp. With Germans chasing them, they made it to the Swiss border, a neutral country. They were safe, temporarily. One asked the other what would happen and was told that they would make their way back to France and be assigned to another unit and then go back into battle. The other asked, "Wouldn’t it be nice if there was no war?" to which his comrade replied, "What are you, an illusionist?"

We are living the Grand Illusion in a much more severe way than Jean Renoir could have imagined.

Many people speak of the lies that led to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. However, a great number of people forget, or are not aware, that the same propaganda campaign preceded the 1991 destruction of Iraq by the U.S. Same lies, same story line, same results.

Former U.S. Attorney-General Ramsey Clark came about as close as anyone to bringing justice to the perpetrators of the 1991 massacre. He formed an International War Crimes Tribunal that received much publicity in the world, except in the U.S. media. Although he had a representative group of judges and witnesses, and went to great lengths to convene this Tribunal, those found guilty had to pay no price. The following is from my book, The Mother of All Battles: The Endless U.S.-Iraq War. Clark did not hold the trial to insure that the same mistakes would not occur in the future. He organized the event to call out publicly the names and crimes of those involved.

The most powerful forces in Desert Storm were not the bombs or missiles dropped on Iraq. Without firing a shot, the U.S. media ensured the country’s destruction. Their acquiescence to U.S. government demands stopped all discussion of a negotiated settlement of the crisis. Schwarzkopf said it all on the day after the cease-fire. At a press conference, he laughed as he told the journalists, "You printed everything just the way we said it."

If the media tried to find the truth, or gave both sides a chance to be heard, there is a possibility that there would not have been a Desert Storm. The U.S. public had no idea why Iraq went into Kuwait or the history of the area. To this day, because of biased media coverage, the American public, for the most part, thinks Saddam Hussein was attempting to take over the world.

During Desert Shield, the buildup to the massacre, there was much talk about impending military action. For months, we heard many voices, however, those who supported military action dominated the debate. Occasionally, an opponent of a military solution was given a chance to speak, but the message was usually negated by the moderators of radio and TV shows.

Politicians told the U.S. public outrageous lies about the situation. The press was remiss in challenging these untruths, so more and bigger lies followed. The media, the military, politicians and administration officials were exempt from having to tell the truth.

It would take thousands of pages to chronicle the deficiencies of the media in their lapdog role during Desert Shield and Desert Storm, but one portion of history was ignored by the U.S. press — former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark’s formation of a war crimes tribunal and the following trial and judgement against the U.S. government.

In February 1991, Ramsey Clark visited Iraq during the height of allied bombing. He did not see a pretty sight. Clark returned with much videotape and tales of horror of Iraq’s civilian population being bombed, despite the U.S. government’s denial. U.S. television stations did not show any videotape and Clark’s message went unheard and unseen.

Shortly after the cease-fire, Clark formed a Commission of Inquiry to travel to Iraq to see if there was enough evidence to put the U.S. government on trial for war crimes and crimes against peace. The Commission found a wealth of evidence and returned to the U.S.

For the next nine months, Clark and various members of the Commission traveled worldwide to gather further evidence of war crimes. The results were overwhelming. People came forward to give evidence of atrocities perpetrated against Iraq’s population, its military, the environment, and citizens of other countries. Whenever the Commission took evidence, whether in Europe, Asia, Africa or the Middle East, the media of many countries were in attendance. Despite the large attendance at meetings, the U.S. media were absent.

On February 29, 1992, in New York City, the International War Crimes Tribunal convened to try George Bush, Dan Qualye, James Baker, Dick Cheney, William Webster, Colin Powell, Norman Schwarzkopf and others on 19 charges of crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and other criminal acts and high crimes. The Martin Luther King High School auditorium was filled to capacity (more than 1,500) and many others lined up outside to hear the proceedings over loudspeakers. The broadcast media of various countries carried the trial live, but, despite the attendance and international coverage, U.S. press disregarded the event.

The panel consisted of 21 people from assorted countries and it ruled on the following 19 counts:

• The U.S. engaged in a pattern of conduct beginning in or before 1989 intended to lead Iraq into provocations justifying U.S. military action against Iraq and permanent U.S. military domination of the Gulf.
• President Bush from August 2, 1990, intended to prevent any interference to his plan to destroy Iraq militarily and economically.
• President Bush ordered the destruction of facilities essential to civilian life and economic productivity in Iraq.
• The U.S. intentionally bombed and destroyed civilian life, commercial and business districts, schools, hospitals, mosques, churches, shelters, residential areas, historical sites, private vehicles and civilian government offices.
• The U.S. intentionally bombed indiscriminately throughout Iraq.
• The U.S. intentionally bombed and destroyed Iraqi personnel, used excessive force, killed soldiers seeking to surrender and in disorganized flight, often unarmed and far from any combat zones and randomly and wantonly killed Iraqi soldiers and destroyed materiel after the cease-fire.
• The U.S. used prohibited weapons capable of mass destruction and inflicting indiscriminate death and unnecessary suffering against both military and civilian targets.
• The U.S. intentionally attacked installations in Iraq containing dangerous substances and forces.
• President Bush ordered U.S. forces to invade Panama resulting in the deaths of 1,000 to 4,000 Panamanians and the destruction of thousands of private dwellings, public buildings and commercial structures.
• President Bush obstructed justice and corrupted United Nations functions as a means of power to commit crimes against peace and war crimes.
• President Bush usurped the Constitutional power of Congress as a means of securing power to commit crimes against peace, war crimes and other high crimes.
• The U.S. waged war on the environment.
• President Bush encouraged and aided Shi’ite Muslims and Kurds to rebel against the government of Iraq causing fratricidal violence, emigration, exposure, hunger and sickness, and thousands of deaths. After the rebellion failed, the U.S. invaded and occupied parts of Iraq without authority in order to increase division and hostility within Iraq.
• President Bush intentionally deprived the Iraqi people of essential medicine, potable water, food and other necessities.
• The U.S. continued its assault on Iraq after the cease-fire, invading and occupying at will.
• The U.S. has violated and condoned violations of human rights, civil liberties and the U.S. Bill of Rights in the U.S., in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere to achieve its purpose of military domination.
• The U.S., having destroyed Iraq’s economic base, demands reparations which will permanently impoverish Iraq and threaten its people with famine and epidemic.
• President Bush systematically manipulated, controlled, directed, misinformed and restricted press and media coverage to obtain constant support in the media for his military and political goals.
• The U.S. has by force secured a permanent military presence in the Gulf, the control of its oil resources and geopolitical domination of the Arabian Peninsula and the Gulf region.

When the trial concluded, there was a verdict. According to the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal:

How could a trial held in the U.S. against the U.S. government be ignored by the press? The subject alone should have piqued the media’s curiosity. The blackout was not due to lack of notice from the International War Crimes Tribunal — many press releases were sent and many phone calls were made in an attempt to gain publicity.

I tried to discover why there was a lack of coverage. First, I talked to Irv Cass, news director of Channel 39, and NBC affiliate in San Diego, California. He explained, "There could be a variety of reasons why we didn’t cover it. We get news from a variety of sources, such as AP, NBC Network and CNN."

Could AP (Associated Press), the agency from which thousands of television stations, radio stations, and newspapers gain their information be the culprit? According to Adrianne Weil Parks of the AP office in New York, the AP has a clean record on this issue. She said, "Sure. I put all their (Tribunal) stuff on the wire. Believe me, I’ve put them out."

Three major wire services (AP, UPI and Reuters) were given much information from the Tribunal. UPI admitted to receiving the information, but could not verify if it was sent over the wires. Reuters did send the story. According to Art Spiegleman of Reuters, "We sent out the story a couple of days before it (the trial) took place."

At least two of the three major wire services announced the War Crimes Tribunal, leaving the media one less excuse for not running the story. Paul Ahuja was the press director for the Tribunal. He mentioned some publications that did not cover the story because of its controversial nature. Ahuja recalled a conversation with Sidney Schanberg of Newsday in which Schanberg told him, "I can’t cover this story. I’d get fired."

The New York Times was just as squeamish. Staff at the publication told Ahuja, "This story is editorial suicide."

Ramsey Clark was critical of the press coverage of Desert Storm and the lack of coverage of the Tribunal. He said, "The press has totally defaulted. It began with Grenada." His reference of Grenada alluded to the U.S. government’s blackout of press coverage of the invasion of the island by U.S. forces in 1983. Clark added, "They (the press) complained for a while, but they soon forgot."

During Desert Storm, Clark was vocal about his opposition; however, he and many other opponents were totally shut out by the media. Clark said, "The press led the American people to celebrate a slaughter."

Clark called the media remiss in attempting to get the facts. He stated:

According to Clark, the journalists used the excuse of imminent danger for their exit. He said, "It’s like a fireman saying, ‘Hell, that’s a big fire. I’m not going in there.’"

MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING

The Iranian election results are in. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won. Those two sentences are about all the publicity that the election warranted.

Until about a month ago, his re-election seemed assured. Then, outside forces intervened and used creative fantasies to portray this as a great historical event. The Western press began to push his closest rival, Mir Hossein Mousavi, as a reformist capable of changing Iran into a fair and just nation that would make friends with the world. Mousavi, a distant second in the polls at the time, was himself surprised at his designation as Iran’s possible savior. His views were similar to those of Ahmadinejad, and, with the subject of Iran’s nuclear program, were identical. The only difference appeared to be Mousavi’s declaration of toning down rhetoric and attempting to gain better relations with the West.

Then, the propaganda machines went into full gear. According to many media pundits, Mousavi’s victory would reverse all the negative aspects of Iran. They began affixing names and colors to the revolution. These were identical to the Western depictions of elections in Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, and other former Soviet republics that the U.S. was courting. Even the bogus Iraqi "elections" of 2005 were designated the "purple" revolution.

With Iran, the same script writers emerged. They tried to affix a name to the occurrences in Iraq, such as the "velvet" revolution. But, I think that name had already been used.

A few days before the election, young Iranians took to the street to show their support of a new Iran. Few, however, realized that Mousavi did not include a revolution in his agenda.

In 1978 and 1979, millions of people took over the streets of Iran in an attempt to force the Shah from the country and change the government. It worked. There was jubilance, but it soon ceased for many Iranians who thought they were getting a new country based on democracy and justice. The movement included people of all political persuasions, especially those of the Iranian left. But, when the smoke cleared, Ataytollah Khomeini sat in the driver’s seat as the head of an Islamic republic. Many political activists who created the revolution were now left out in the cold. A program was quickly instituted in which thousands of pro-revolution activists, who were against the formation of a sectarian state, disappeared. Those who participated in recent street demonstrations seemed to forget the events of 30 years ago.

Now, there are theories about who would have been the better leader in terms of relations with the U.S. and Israel. This speculation is quite absurd. Ahmadinejad is the best choice for furthering the current agendas of both nations.

If Mousavi won and he toned down the language of the regime, Israel would have lost a major target to demonize. Because of this, Israel may have been forced to approach the Palestinian issue in a less harsh manner. But, with a dim-witted president who makes the occasional ridiculous public statement, Israel still has an excuse for its belligerence. "See, he’s threatening to blow up Israel" will still be used by Israelis to continue the nation’s despicable treatment of Palestinians. Plus, no one will question Israel’s nuclear arsenal because the West will infer that Iran is so erratic that it is a threat to Israel’s existence. I would assume that Netanyahu breathed a sigh of relief when the news of Ahmadinejad’s victory reached the media headlines.

Despite all the bluster from the U.S. administration about human rights in Iran, there is no doubt that they are comfortable with Ahmadinejad. Iran has assisted the U.S. many times over the years, all the time being cast as a rogue state by the U.S. Iran gladly accepts this designation in return for all the assistance the U.S. has given the nation.

In 1991, Iranian fighters crossed the border of Iraq and helped begin the Shi’ite insurrection in the south of the country. The U.S. knew this and kept silent. The Iraqi military finally quelled the Iranian-backed coup attempt; an operation that the U.S. thought would work and get rid of Saddam Hussein and the Ba’ath Party.

Iran’s presence in Iraq in 2003, after the U.S. invasion, was much more successful and deadly. Iranian-backed militias murdered thousands of people: scholars, doctors, professors, etc. in an attempt to get rid of the intelligentia in Iraq and make it easier for sectarian Shi’ites to come to the forefront. Hundreds of Iraqi pilots who flew for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War were hunted down and assassinated by Iranian agents and Iranian-backed militias. The U.S. had a convenient ally in taking care of dirty business without having to do the work themselves.

Iran has gained a foothold in Iraq that will be hard to reverse. Economically, Iran has benefited greatly from the venture. In the south of Iraq, many signs are in the Farsi language, not Arabic.

The U.S.-Iran tag-team is a balanced alliance, although publicly not admitted. Iran has a strong hold on Iraq and the U.S. has gained much information from Iran about Afghanistan and Iraq. Since Bush’s announcement of the "war on terror," Iran has been a willing partner.

The talk of the U.S. going to war with Iran is absurd. Both have, and continue to, help each other immensely. We can see from Obama’s actions that the public denigration, yet private collaboration with Iran has not changed since the Bush administration and shows no sign of being altered in the near future.

The people who recently took to the streets in Iran were pawns. Their making a hero out of Mousavi did nothing to help their cause. In the long run, Iranian officials may take punitive measures against the duped citizens.

The actions of the young people in Iran and those of the anti-war, progressive left in the U.S. are identical. The U.S. left took a mediocre mainstream U.S. senator and created a mystique about him. Obama became the greatest thing since Jesus roamed the Earth (if he ever existed). After his inauguration, Obama has proven millions of his supporters to be wrong. Some have openly criticized his right-of-center actions, while others, even though they know they were wrong in building up Obama, fail to admit their errors. In both cases, press hoopla began an illogical program of creating images that did not exist for Obama and Mousavi.

What if Mousavi had won? Most thinking journalists have stated that there would be little or no difference. Their reasoning is that no matter who is the president of Iran, the final say in matters comes from the nation’s clerics.

On June 13, 2009, the Associated Press ran an article that delved into the various options that would occur with a victory of either of the candidates. According to the article, "With Nuclear Dispute at Stake, World Reacts Cautiously to Iranian Hard-liner’s Re-election:

The reality of Iran’s nuclear program is that if it did have a few nuclear weapons, they would be useless. A pre-emptive nuclear strike against Israel with one nuke would invite a response in minutes of dozens of nukes against Iran. As feeble-minded as Ahmadinejad is, he realizes this fact. Plus, the real powers in Iran would not be stupid enough to unleash an out-dated nuclear weapon against Israel, who possesses limitless stocks of modern devastating weapons in addition to its several hundred nukes.

Many people spoke gleefully of a change of administration in Iran. But, as we see, the administration can only go so far and the clerics would cease any proposed actions that they did not agree with. In all the media frenzy, a report from Al-Jazeera News last week seems to have gone un-noticed. It spoke of the reality of a "revolution" in Iran and who really holds the power in Iran. The piece was called "Iran Guard Warns Reformist Groups:"

MAYBE NORTH KOREA WILL NOT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE

North Korea is again on the hot seat. Because of its practice of independence and it claims the rights granted to sovereign nations, North Korea is about to face deadly economic sanctions.

For the past couple of weeks, we have heard U.S. spokesperson-after-spokesperson take glee in telling the world of the various sanctions they want imposed against the small nation. In addition, talk of military actions against North Korea have also been bandied about.

According to AL-Jazeera News of June 10, 2009, in an article titled, "UN to Expand N Korea Sanctions:"

Now, a monkey wrench has been thrown into the issue. Two U.S. journalists were apprehended inside North Korea and charged with illegally entering the country as well as committing acts that harmed the nation. They were tried and sentenced to 12 years in prison.

The same people who are threatening North Korea are asking for the release of the two women who were convicted. They maintain that their case should not be mixed in with the political situation. Calls for their immediate release are coming from many sectors, especially the "progressive" element of the U.S.: the same people who once stated they were against the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the U.S., but who have said they oppose the Iraqi resistance. Not one word about the actions the women committed. Just release them.

A few days ago, a U.S. couple was arrested and charged with spying for Cuba. They were set up by an undercover FBI agent. So far, scant proof of espionage has come forth, yet the couple is being held without bail. I hear no outcry from the U.S. left to release them.

Now comes a bizarre story of similarities. I have yet to read about the parallel of an almost identical occurrence from 14 years ago in Iraq, a nation under a strict economic embargo who tried two U.S. citizens as spies and convicted them. Bill Richardson was the person who arranged for the Iraqi government to release the spies. A benevolent Saddam Hussein let them return to the U.S. Saddam received nothing in return for the release of the spies except for a stronger anti-Iraq stance from the U.S. government once they were on U.S. soil.

Saddam made a mistake in judgement in thinking the U.S. would appreciate his act of good will. If North Korea looks at the Iraqi precedent, it may try to get some concessions for a release of the two women, or make them serve their sentences. Plus, the same Bill Richardson has stated he is ready to travel to North Korea to negotiate for the release of the two convicted women. Maybe North Korea will not fall into the same trap.

On March 13, 1995, two U.S. citizens (William Barloon and David Daliberti) were captured inside Iraq. Both worked for U.S. civilian contractors and maintained they lost their way trying to visit a friend in Kuwait.

At that time, the Iraq/Kuwait border was heavily reinforced by a deep ditch with towering fences on each side. The pair was well inside Iraq and it would have been almost impossible for them to have accidentally wandered into Iraqi territory.

They were taken to Baghdad and tried on charges of espionage. The couple received a sentence of eight years in prison. The Clinton administration then began its cover-up efforts. Spokespeople said the Americans were not spies because they did not have road maps with them at the time of their arrest. Most of the U.S. public believed the administration’s assessment. There is one aspect that few people took into consideration: spies do not go on a mission with roadmaps. They have memorized exact locations. If a spy used a roadmap, he/she would be put in the same category as Inspector Clouseau of Pink Panther notoriety.

With two of its citizens, accused spies, in Iraqi hands, one would think the U.S. would have been a little humble in its attempts to get them released. No such luck.

According to Douglas Jehl, author of "Americans in Iraq Given 8-Year Term," in the March 26, 1995 edition of the New York Times:

On March 27, 1995, the ante was raised. Steven Greenhouse wrote an article for the New York Times, "U.S. Vows to Press Hard on Iraq to Free Americans," in which he said:

For the entire time this story gained headlines, the U.S. press called Barloon and Daliberti "hostages." There is a substantial difference in meaning between the words "hostages" and "prisoners," but the subliminal message created by calling them hostages raised the ire of the U.S. citizens.

On March 30, 1995, the Iraqi government allowed a Polish diplomat and a reporter for CNN to visit the pair in prison. They stated that the prisoners were in good health.

On July 17, 1995, Bill Richardson, at the time a U.S. congressman, visited Baghdad to try to obtain the release of the pair. Saddam Hussein granted a pardon and allowed them to leave Iraq.

Despite the act of goodwill on behalf of the Iraqi government, the U.S. continued a barrage of insults toward the country. Warren Christopher, the U.S. Secretary of State at the time, assured the public that the U.S. promised nothing in return for the pair’s release.

Bill Richardson returned to the U.S. as a hero and was in the media spotlight, but, his statements about Saddam Hussein changed immensely and he made many jokes about the Iraqi president.

During the negotiations, Richardson crossed his legs and had the bottom of one shoe pointing right at Saddam, who left the room and returned so see Richardson with both feet on the floor. Saddam’s aides explained to Richardson that the bottom of a shoe was one of the gravest insults in the Arab world. A similar effect would occur if someone negotiating with the U.S. president held his middle finger aloft during the conversation. When Saddam returned, the negotiations continued. He was gracious enough to leave the room and allow his assistants to quickly explain this aspect of Arab culture to the congressman.

When interviewed by PBS, Richardson mentioned the incident. Then he made fun of the affair and said he thought his life may have been in danger and that his Iraqi hosts may have imprisoned and tortured him for the gaffe. Richardson and the program host laughed and made fun of the Iraqis.

Over the next few years, Richardson made many disparaging remarks about Saddam Hussein:

• "This allowed Iraq to starve its own people and blame the sanctions for their suffering. Under the oil-for-food program, we have taken this excuse away from Saddam." (March 1999)
• " … and multilateral sanctions are central to our efforts to contain Saddam." (March 1999)
• "But I also believe it is important that Saddam’s oil revenues be used to relieve the suffering of the Iraqi people rather than by Saddam Hussein for his own criminal purposes." (December 2002)
• "Well, Saddam Hussein, you can never predict what he is going to do, but it is obvious that he is going to put his foot forward; he is going to say, ‘We have no illegal weapons.’" (December 2002)

Very few national leaders would have released two convicted spies with nothing to show in return. There were no "thanks, Saddam" messages coming from the U.S. Instead, Iraq received more threats and many denigrating remarks from the person who visited the country to secure the release of the two prisoners. Until the obvious became clear, Richardson maintained that Iraq had stockpiles of doomsday military equipment.

One aspect of this scenario was not put in place until long after Richardon’s visit to Iraq. While he was negotiating with Saddam Hussein, cinemas, bus stops, schools and other venues were being blown up in Baghdad by terrorists. The perpetrators were eventually caught. They were members of the CIA-backed Iraqi National Accord (INA), a group of Iraqi exiles who attempted to create chaos in Baghdad in an effort to ripen discord and sow the seeds for a coup against Saddam Hussein and the Ba’ath government.

The leader of the exile group was Ilyad Allawi, who later became a U.S.-appointed prime minister of Iraq. By the time the terrorist attacks in Baghdad were thwarted, about 150 Iraqi civilians were killed. This reign of terrorism was financed and supported by the U.S. administration.

While Iraqi civilians were being killed by a U.S.-sponsored program, Richardson gained the release of two U.S. prisoners held in Iraq. The current version of Western history of this time makes Saddam Hussein look like the bad guy and Richardson the good guy. The facts contradict the history.

There was one moment in which Saddam Hussein claimed verbal victory over Richardson. Laura Blumenfeld wrote an article, "A Little Diplomacy Goes a Long Way," for the Washington Post of December 13, 1996. She stated:

Monday-Thursday, June 8-11, 2009

I have read many comments from British people on Internet message boards concerning the statements of Murphy-O’Connor. One, in particular, brought up a quandary for the Church. The writer asked that if a Christian had a sexual encounter with an atheist, would he/she be practicing beastiality. Leave it to the Brits for creative criticism.

TORTURE IS IN THE EYES OF THE BEHOLDER

Lately, the subject of torture has been resurrected. Many U.S. citizens do not consider waterboarding to be torture. However, some have challenged the naysayers to experience waterboarding. The results are laughable. Celebrities such as Christopher Hitchens and Erich "Mancow" Muller, who once stated that waterboarding is not torture, underwent the procedure before cameras. Muller lasted four seconds. Hitchens was a much harder person to subdue: he lasted six seconds. After their experiences, both admitted that waterboarding is indeed torture.

Now, we have a quandary. The President of the United States, Barack Obama, called for the release of dozens of unpublished photos of torture of Iraqis in military prisons other than Abu Ghraib, showing the practice was widespread. Once and for all, the subject would get a hearing and U.S. methods would change. However, within a few days of the announcement, Obama declared the photos would not be made public. In basketball terms, he faked us out.

Obama’s reasoning is quite illogical. He states that by showing the photos, the rest of the world will be up in arms at the actions of the U.S. military in torturing individuals. That’s exactly why they should be shown. To clear the dust and change barbaric actions. In addition to keeping the pictures away from the public, Obama is also keeping documents once scheduled for release under wraps. During the presidential campaign, Obama promised to open the flood gates on this portion of U.S. history and clear the air. He lied. So much, in fact, that the situation is even murkier than before.

The first inkling of prisoners being tortured came forth with the publishing of the initial batch of photos taken at Abu Ghraib prison. The world was shocked. The U.S. government called these actions the work of a few "misfits." Further research, however, showed that the orders came from the top. Now, Obama is trying to save the asses of the miserable semi-humans who organized and implemented torture.

In the case of Abu Ghraib, more than 90% of the prisoners were non-combatants who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. U.S. soldiers were ordered to arrest any male of military age. So, when reading the transcripts below, realize that these people were ordinary Iraqis who were rounded up for no reason other than breathing.

If one U.S. prisoner of war were tortured, missiles would be fired and bombs dropped. However, the torture of thousands of innocent Iraqis is not even worthy of discussion in the U.S. halls of government.

It is amazing how an overweight halfwit drug addict can proclaim idiotic statements and be taken seriously. When the Abu Ghraib scandal first emerged, Rush Limbaugh, the darling of U.S. beer swillers and owners of pickup trucks with gun racks, made the following assessment:

In many of the original Abu Ghraib pictures, a person with horned-rim glasses appears performing myriad atrocities on the prisoners. His name is Charles Graner. When this information was made public, Spec. Joseph M. Darby, who reported the photos to higher authorities, asked Graner about the pictures. Graner explained:

Who’s the pervert? Maybe Limbaugh should take a page out of the book of those celebrities who experienced waterboarding and have someone make the rotund talk-show host piss himself.

Below is Appendix VII from my book The Mother of All Battles: The Endless U.S.-Iraq War. They are transcripts of prisoners who were tortured at Abu Ghraib. Keep in mind, these people were non-combatants who were picked up off the street.

"I always knew the Americans would bring electricity back to Baghdad.

I just never thought they'd be shooting it up my ass."

—Young Iraqi translator, Baghdad, November 2003

The following are statements from only a small number of Iraqi prisoners who were mistreated by U.S. forces at Abu Ghraib Prison. Once the totality of the torture became known, it became evident that incidents such as those below were widespread and common.

IRAQI PRISONER OF WAR TRANSCRIPTS

The following were taken at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq by prisoner interview/interrogation teams from the 10^th Military Police Batallion, 3^rd Military Police Unit. The translators, assigned to the team, were Mr. Johnson ISHO and Abdelilah Alazadi of the Titan Corporation, a civilian contractor.

"On the third day after five o’clock, Mr. Grainer came and took me to Room #37, which is the shower room, and he started punishing me. The he brought a box of food and he made me stand on it with no clothing, except a blanket. Then a tall black soldier came and put electrical wires on my fingers and toes and on my penis, and I had a bag over my head. Then he was saying, ‘which switch is on for electricity?’ And he came with a loudspeaker and he was shouting near my ear and then he brought the camera and he took some pictures of me, which I knew because of the flash of the camera. And he took the hood off and he was describing some poses he wanted me to do, and that I was tired and I fell down. And then Mr. Grainer came and made me stand up on the stairs and made me carry a box of food. I was so tired and I dropped it. He started screaming at me in English. He made me lift a white chair high in the air. Then the chair came down and then Mr. Joyner took the hood off my head and took me to my room. And I slept after that for about an hour and then I woke up at the headcount time. I couldn’t go to sleep after that because I was very scared."

"On the date of November 5, 2003, when the U.S. forces transferred to Isolation, when they took me out of the car, an American soldier hit me with his hand on my face. And then they stripped me naked and they took me under the water and then he made me crawl the hallway until I was bleeding from my chest to my knees and my hands. And after that he put me back into the cell and an hour later he took me out from the cell the second time to the shower room under cold water and then he made me get up on a box, naked, and he hit me on my manhood. I don’t know with what, then I fell down on the ground. He made me crawl on the ground. And then he tied my hands in my cell naked until morning time until Joyner showed up and released my hands and took me back to my room and gave me my clothes back. About two days later my interrogation came up, when it was done a white soldier wearing glasses picked me from the room I was in. He grabbed my head and hit it against the wall and then tied my hand to the bed until noon the next day and then two days later the same soldier and he took all my clothes and my mattress and he didn’t give me anything so I can sleep on except my jump suit for 3 days. Then Joyner came and gave me a blanket and my clothes for a second time."

"I am going to start from the first day I went into A1. They stripped me from my clothes and all the stuff that they gave me and I spent 6 days in that situation. And then they gave me a blanket only. 3 days after that, they gave me a mattress, and after a short period of time, approximately at 2 at night, the door opened and Grainer was there. He cuffed my hands behind my back and he cuffed my feet and he took me to the shower room. When they finished interrogating me, the female interrogator left. And then Grainer and another man, who looked like Grainer but doesn’t have glasses, and has a thin moustache, and he was young and tall, came into the room. They threw pepper on my face and the beating started. This went on for a half hour. And then he started beating me with the chair until the chair was broken. After that they started choking me. At that time I thought I was going to die, but it’s a miracle I lived. And then they started beating me again. They concentrated on beating me in my heart until they got tired from beating me. They took a little break and then they started kicking me very hard with their feet until I passed out.

"In the second scene at the night shift, I saw a new guard that wears glasses and has a red face. He charged his pistol and pointed it at a lot of the prisoners to threaten them with it. I saw things no one would see, they were amazing. They come in the morning shift with two prisoners and they were father and son. They were both naked. They put them in front of each other and they counted 1, 2, 3, and then removed the bags from their heads.

When the son saw his father naked he was crying. He was crying because of seeing his father. And then at night, Grainer used to throw the food into the toilet an said, ‘go take it and eat it.’ And I saw also in Room #5 they brought the dogs. Grainer brought the dogs and they bit him in the right and left leg. He was from Iran and they started beating him up in the main hallway in the prison."

"I am the person named above. I entered Abu Ghraib prison on 10 Jul 2003, that was after they brought me from Baghdad area. They put me in the tent area and then they brought me to Hard Site. The first day they put me in a dark room and started hitting me in the head and stomach and legs.

"They made me raise my hands and sit on my knees. I was like that for four hours. Then the Interrogator came and he was looking at me while they were beating me. Then I stayed in the room for 5 days, naked with no clothes. They then took me to another cell on the upper floor. On 15 Oct 2003 they replaced the Army with the Iraqi Police and after that time they started punishing me in all sorts of ways. And the first punishment was bringing me to Room #1, and they put handcuffs on my hand and they cuffed me high for 7 or 8 hours. And that caused a rupture to my right hand and I had a cut that was bleeding and had pus coming from it. They kept me this way on 24, 25 and 26 October. And in the following days, they also put a bag over my head, and of course, this whole time I was without clothes and without anything to sleep on. And one day in November, they started different type of punishment, where an American Police came in my room and put the bag over my head and cuffed my hands and he took me out of the room into the hallway. He started beating me, him, and 5 other American Police. I could see their feet only, from under the bag. A couple of those police they were female because I heard their voices and I saw two of the police that were hitting me before they put the bag over my head. One of them was wearing glasses. I couldn’t read his name because he put tape over his name. Some of the things they did was make me sit down like a dog, and they would hold the string from the bag and they made me bark like a dog and they were laughing at me. And that policeman was a tan color, because he hit my head to the wall. When he did that, the bag came off my head and one of the police was telling me to crawl in Arabic, so I crawled on my stomach and the police were spitting on me when I was crawling and hitting me on my back, my head and my feet. It kept going on until their shift ended at 4 o’clock in the morning. The same thing would happen in the following days.

"And I remember also one of the police hit me on my ear, before the usual beating, cuffing, bagging, dog position and crawling until 6 people gathered. And one of them was an Iraqi translator named Shaheen, he is a tan color, he has a moustache. Then the police started beating me on my kidneys and then they hit me on my right ear and it started bleeding and I lost consciousness. Then the Iraqi translator picked me up and told me, ‘You are going to sleep.’ Then when I went into the room, I woke up again. I was unconscious for about two minutes. The policeman dragged me into the room where he washed my ear and called the doctor. The Iraqi doctor came and told me he couldn’t take me to the clinic, so he fixed me in the hallway. When I woke up, I saw 6 of the American police.

"A few days before they hit me on my ear, the American police, the guy who wears glasses, he put red woman’s underwear over my head. And then he tied me to the window that is in the cell with my hands behind my back until I lost consciousness. And also when I was in Room #1 they told me to lay down on my stomach and they were jumping from the bed onto my back and my legs. And the other two were spitting on me and calling me names, and they held my hands and legs. After the guy with the glasses go tired, two of the American soldiers brought me to the ground and tied my hands to the door while laying down on my stomach. One of the police was pissing on me and laughing on me. He then released my hands and I went and washed, and then the solider came back into the room, and the soldier and his friend told me in a loud voice to lie down, so I did that. And then the policeman was opening my legs, with a bag over my head, and he sat down between my legs on his knees and I was looking at him from under the bag and they wanted to do me because I saw him and he was opening his pants, so I started screaming loudly and the other police started hitting me with his feet on my neck and he put his feet on my head so I couldn’t scream. Then they left and the guy with the glasses comes back with another person and he took me out of the room and they put me inside the dark room again and they started beating me with the broom that was there. And then they put the loudspeaker inside the room and they closed the door and he was yelling in the microphone. Then they broke the glowing finger and spread it on me until I was glowing and they were laughing. They took me to the room and they signaled me to get on the floor. And one of the police he put a part of his stick that he always carries inside my ass and I felt it going inside me about 2 centimeters, approximately. And I started screaming, and he pulled it out and he washed it with water inside the room. And the two American girls that were there when they were beating me, they were hitting me with a ball made of sponge on my dick. And when I was tied up in my room, one of the girls, with blonde hair, she is white, she was playing with my dick. I saw inside this facility a lot of punishment just like what they did to me and more. And they were taking pictures of me during all these instances."

"I am Ameen Sa’eed AL-SHEIKH. I was arrested on the 7 Oct 2003. They brought me over to Abu Ghraib Prison, the put me in a tent for one night. During this night the guards every one or two hours and threaten me with torture and punishment. The second day they transferred me to the hard site. Before I got in, a soldier put a sand bag over my head. I didn’t see anything after that. They took me inside the building and started to scream at me. They stripped me naked, they asked me, ‘Do you pray to Allah?’ I said, ‘Yes.’ They said, ‘Fuck you’ and ‘Fuck him.’ One of them said, ‘You are not getting out of here health, you are getting out of here handicap.’ And he said to me, ‘Are you married?’ I said, ‘Yes.’ They said, ‘If your wife saw you like this, she will be disappointed.’ One of them said, ‘But if I saw her now, she would not be disappointed now because I would rape her.’ Then one of them took me to the showers, removed the sand bag, and I saw him, a black man, he told me to take a shower and he said he would come inside and rape me and I was very scared. Then they put the sand bag over my head and took me to cell #5. And for the next five days I didn’t sleep because they use to come to my cell, asking me to stand up for hours and hours. And they slammed the outer door, which made a loud scary noise inside the cell. And this black soldier took me once more to the showers, stood there staring at my body. And he threaten he was going to rape me again. After that, they started to interrogate me. I lied to them so they threaten me with hard punishment. Then other interrogators came over and told me, ‘If you tell the truth, we will let you go as soon as possible before Ramadan,’ so I confessed and said the truth. Four days after that, they took me to the camp and I didn’t see those interrogators any more. New interrogators came and re-interrogated me. After I told them the truth they accused me of being lying to them. After 18 days in the camp, they sent me to the hard site. I asked the interrogators why? They said they did not know. Two days before Ied (end of Ramadan), an interrogator came to me with a woman and an interpreter. He said I’m one step away from being in prison forever. He started the interrogation with this statement and ended it with this statement. The first day of Ied, the incident of ‘Firing’ happened. I got shot with several bullets in my body and got transferred to the hospital. And there the interrogator ‘Steve’ came to me and threaten me with the hardest torture when I go back to the prison. I said to him, ‘I’m sorry about what happened.’ He said to me, ‘Don’t be sorry now, because you will be sorry later.’ After several days, he came back and said to me, ‘If I put you under torture, do you think this would be fair?’ I said to him, ‘Why?’ He said he needed more information from me. I told him, ‘I already told you everything I know.’ He said, ‘We’ll see when you get back to the prison.’ After 17 or 18 days, I was released from the hospital, went back to Abu Ghraib, he took me somewhere and the guard put a pistol to my head. He said, ‘I wish I can kill you right now.’ I spend the night at this place and next morning they took me to the hard site. They received me there with screaming, shoving, pushing and pulling. They forced me to walk from the main gate to my cell. Otherwise they would beat my broken leg. I was in a very bad shape. When I went to the cell, they took my crutches and I didn’t see it since. Inside the cell, they asked me to strip naked; they didn’t give me blanket or clothes or anything. Every hour or two, soldiers came, threatening me they were going to kill me and torture me and I’m going to be in prison forever and they might transfer me to Guantanamo Bay. One of them came and told me that he failed to shoot me the first time, but he will make sure he will succeed next time. And he said to me they were going to throw a pistol or a knife in my cell, then shoot me. Sometime they said, ‘We’ll make you wish to die and it will not happen.’ The night guard came over, his name is GRANER, open the cell door, came in with a number of soldiers. They forced me to eat pork and they put liquor in my mouth. They put this substance on my nose and forehead and it was very hot. The guards started to hit me on my broken leg several times with a solid plastic stick. He told me he got shot in his leg and he showed me the scar and he would retaliate from me for this. They stripped me naked. One of them told me he would rape me. He drew a picture of a woman on my back and makes me stand in shameful position holding my buttocks. Someone else asked me, ‘Do you believe in anything?’ I said to him, ‘I believe in Allah.’ So he said, ‘But I believe in torture and I will torture you. When I go home to my country, I will ask whoever comes after me to torture you.’ Then they handcuffed me and hung me to the bed. They ordered me to curse Islam because they started to hit my broken leg, I cursed my religion. They ordered me to thank Jesus that I’m alive. And I did what they ordered me. This is against my belief. They left me hang from the bed and after a little while I lost consciousness. When I woke up, I found myself still hang between the bed and the floor. Until now, I lost feeling in three fingers in my right hand. I sat on the bed, one of the stood by the door and pee’d on me. And he said, ‘GRANER, your prisoner pee’d on himself.’ And then GRANER came and laughed. After several hours, GRANER came and uncuffed me, then I slept. In the morning until now, people I don’t know come over and humiliate me and threaten that they will torture me. The second night, GRANER came and hung me to the cell door. I told him, ‘I have a broken shoulder and I am afraid it will break again cause the doctor told me, "don’t put your arms behind your back." He said, ‘I don’t care.’ Then he hung me to the door for more than eight hours. I was screaming from pain the whole night. GRANER and others used to come and ask me, ‘Does it hurt?’ I said, ‘Yes.’ They said, ‘Good.’ And they smack me on the back of the head. After that, a soldier came and uncuffed me. My right shoulder and my wrist was in bad shape and great pain. (When I was hung to the door, I lost consciousness several times.) Then I slept. In the morning I told the doctor that I think my shoulder is broken because I can’t move my hand. I feel severe pain. He checked my shoulder and told me, ‘I will bring another doctor to see you tomorrow.’ The next day, the other doctor checked my shoulder and said to me he’s taking me to the hospital the next day for X-rays. And the next day he took me to the hospital and X-rayed my shoulder and the doctor told me, ‘Your shoulder is not broke, but your shoulder is badly hurt.’ Then they took me back to the hard site. Every time I leave and come back. I have to crawl back to my cell because I can’t walk. The next day, other soldiers came at night and took photos of me while I’m naked. They humiliated me and threaten me. After the interrogators came over and identify the person who gave me the pistols between some pictures. And this guy wasn’t in the pictures. When I told them that, they said they will torture me and they will come every single night to ask me the same question accompanied with soldiers having weapons and they point a weapon to my head and threaten that they will kill me; sometimes with dogs and they hang me to the door allowing the dogs to bite me. This happened for a full week or more."

"In the name of God, I swear to God that everything I witnessed everything I am talking about. I am not saying this to gain any material thing, and I was not pressured to do this by any forces. First, I am going to talk about what happened to me in Abu Ghraib Jail. I will not talk about what happened when I was in jail before, because they did not ask me about that, but it was very bad.

"They stripped me of all my clothes, even my underwear. They gave me woman’s underwear, that was rose color with flowers in it and they put a bag over my face. One of them whispered in my ear, ‘Today I am going to fuck you,’ and he said this in Arabic. Whoever was with me experienced the same thing. That’s what the American soldiers did, and they had a translator with them, named Abu Hamid and a female soldier, who’s skin was olive colored and this was on October 3 or 4, 2003 around 3 or 4 in the afternoon. When they took me to the cell, the translator Abu Hamid came with an American soldier and his rank was sergeant (I believe). And he called me ‘faggot’ because I was wearing the woman’s underwear, and my answer was ‘no.’ Then he told me ‘Why are you wearing this underwear?’ Then I told them ‘because you make me wear it.’ The transfer from Camp B to the Isolation was full of beatings, but the bags were over our heads so we couldn’t see their faces. And they forced me to wear this underwear all the time, for 51 days. And most of the days I was wearing nothing else.

"I faced more harsh punishment from Grainer. He cuffed my hands with irons behind my back to the metal of the window, to the point my feet were off the ground and I was hanging there for about 5 hours just because I asked about the time, because I wanted to pray. And then they took all my clothes and he took the female underwear and he put it over my head. After he released me from the window, he tied me to my bed until before dawn. He took me to the shower room. After he took me to the shower room, he brought me to my room again. He prohibited me from eating food that night even though I was fasting that day. Grainer and the other two soldiers were taking pictures of every thing they did to me. I don’t know if they took a picture of me because they beat me so bad I lost consciousness after an hour or so.

"They didn’t give us food for a whole day and a night, while we were fasting for Ramadan. And the food was only one package of emergency food.

"Now I am talking about what I saw.

"They brought three prisoners completely naked and they tied them together with cuffs and they stuck one to another. I saw the American soldiers hitting them with a football and they were taking pictures. I saw Grainer punching one of the prisoners right in his face vary hard when he refused to take off his underwear and I heard them begging for help. And also the American soldiers told to do like homosexuals (fucking). And there was one of the American soldiers they called Sergeant (black skin) three was 7 to 8 soldiers there also. Also female soldiers were taking pictures and that was in the first day of Ramadan. And they repeated the same thing the second day of Ramadan. And they were ordering them to crawl while they were cuffed together naked.

"I saw (name blocked out) fucking a kid, his age would be about 15-18 years. The kid was hurting very bad and they covered all the doors with sheets. Then when I heard the screaming I climbed the door because on top it wasn’t covered and I saw (name blocked out), who was wearing the military uniform putting his dick in the little kid’s ass. I couldn’t see the face of the kid because his face wasn’t in front of the door. And the female soldier was taking pictures. (Name blocked out), I think he is (blocked out) because of his accent, and he was not skinny or short, and he acted like a homosexual. And that was in cell #23 as best as I remember.

"In the cell that is almost under it, on the North side, and I was right across from it on the other side. They put the sheets together again on the doors. Grainer and his helper they cuffed one prisoner in Room #1, named (name blocked out), he was Iraqi citizen. They tied him to the bed and they were inserted the phosphoric light in his ass and he was yelling for God’s help. (Name blocked out) used to get hit and punished a lot because I heard him screaming and they prohibited us from standing near the door when they do that. That was Ramadan, around 12 midnight approximately when I saw them putting the stick in his ass. The female was taking pictures.

"I saw more than once men standing on a water bucket that was upside down and they were totally naked. And carrying their chairs over their heads standing under the fan of the hallway behind the wooden partition and also in the shower.

"Not one night for all the time I was there passed without me seeing, hearing or feeling what was happening to me.

"And I am repeating the oath / I swear on Allah almighty on the truth of what I said. Allah is my witness."

"In the name of God, I swear to God that everything I witnessed, everything I am talking about, I am not saying this to gain any material thing, and I was not pressured to do this by any forces. First, I am going to talk only what happened to me in Abu Ghraib Jail. I will not talk about what happened when I was in jail before, because they did not ask me about that, but it was very bad.

"They stripped me of all my clothes, even my underwear. They gave me woman’s underwear, that was rose color with flowers in it and they put the bag over my face. One of them whispered into my ear, ‘today I am going to fuck you,’ and he said this in Arabic. Whoever was with me experienced the same thing. That’s what the American soldiers did, and they had a translator with them, named Abu Hamid and a female soldier, whose skin was olive colored and this was on October 3 or 4, 2003 around 3 or 4 in the afternoon. When they took me to the cell, the translator Abu Hamid came with an American soldier and his rank was sergeant (I believe). And he called me ‘faggot’ because I was wearing the woman’s underwear, and my answer was ‘no.’ Then he told me ‘why are you wearing this underwear?’ then I told them ‘because you make me wear it.’ The transfer from Camp B to the isolation was full of beatings, but the bags were over our heads, so we couldn’t see their faces. And the forced me to wear this underwear all the time, for 51 days. And most of the days I was wearing nothing else.

"I faced more harsh punishment from Grainer. He cuffed my hands with irons behind my back to the metal of the window, to the point my feet were off the ground and I was hanging there, for about 5 hours just because I asked about the time, because I wanted to pray. And then they took all my clothes and he took the female underwear and he put it over my head. After he released me from the window, he tied me to my bed until before dawn. He took me to the shower room. After he took me to the shower room, he brought me to my room again. He prohibited me from eating food that night, even though I was fasting that day. Grainer and the other two soldiers were taking pictures of every thing they did to me. I don’t know if they took a picture of me because they beat me so bad I lost consciousness after an hour or so.

"They didn’t give us food for a whole day and a night, while we were fasting for Ramadan. And the food was only one package of emergency food.

"Now I am talking about what I saw.

"They brought three prisoners completely naked and they tied them together with cuffs and they stuck one to another. I saw the American soldiers hitting them with a football and they were taking pictures. I saw Grainer punching one of the prisoners right in his face very hard when he refused to take off his underwear and I heard them begging for help. And also the American soldiers told to do like homosexual (fucking). And there was one of the American soldiers they called Sergeant (black skin) there was 7 to 8 soldiers there also. Also female soldiers were taking pictures and that was in the first day."

"Before Ramadan, Grainer started covering all the rooms with bed sheets. Then I heard screams coming from Room #1, at that time I was in Room #50 and it’s right below me so I looked into the room. I saw (name blocked) in Room #1, who was naked and Grainer was putting the phosphoric light up his ass. (Name blocked) was screaming for help. There was another tall white man who was with Grainer, he was helping him. There was also a white female soldier, short, she was taking pictures of (name blocked). (Name blocked) is now in cell #50."

"I went to the Solitary Confinement on the Sep/10/2003. I was there for 67 days of suffering and little to eat and the torture I saw myself. When I asked the guard Joyner about the time and he cuffed my hand to the door and then when his duty ended the second guard came, his name is Grainer, he released my hand from the door and he cuffed my hand in the back. Then I told him I did not do anything to get punished this way so when I said that he hit me hard on my chest and he cuffed me to the window of the room about 5 hours and did not give me any food that day and I stayed without food for 24 hours. I saw lots of people getting naked for a few days getting punished in the first days of Ramadan. They came with two boys naked and they were cuffed together face to face and Grainer was beating them and a group of guards were watching and taking pictures from top and bottom and there was three female soldiers laughing at the prisoners. The prisoners, two of them, were young. I don’t know their names."

"One day while in the prison the guard came and found a broken toothbrush, and they said that I was going to attack the American Police; I said that the toothbrush wasn’t mine. They said we are taking away your clothes and mattress for 6 days and we are not going to beat you. But the next day the guard came and cuffed me to the cell door for 2 hours, after that they took me to a closed room and more than five guards poured cold water on me, and forced me to put my head in someone’s urine that was already in that room. After that they beat me with a broom and stepped on my head with their feet while it was still in the urine. They pressed my ass with a broom and spit on it. Also a female soldier, whom I don’t know the name was standing on my legs. They used a loudspeaker to shout at me for 3 hours, it was cold. But to tell the truth in daytime Joiner gave me my clothes and at night Grainer took them away. The truth is they gave me my clothes after 3 days, they didn’t finish the 6 days and thank you."

"One of those days the guards tortured the prisoners. Those guards are Graner, David and another man. First they tortured the man whose name is Amjid Iraqi. They stripped him of his clothes and beat him until he passed out and they cursed him and when they took off of his head I saw blood running from his head. They took him to solitary confinement and they were beating him every night.

"The evening shift was sad for the prisoners. They brought three prisoners handcuffed to each other and they pushed the first one on top of the others to look like they are gay and when they refused, Graner beat them up until they put them on top of each other and they took pictures of them. And after that they beat up an Iraqi whose name is Asaad whom they ordered to stand on a food carton and they were pouring water on him and it was the coldest of times. When they torture him they took gloves and they beat his dick and testicles with the gloves and they handcuffed him to the cell door for half a day without food or water. After that they brought young Iraqi prisoners and Graner tortured them by pouring water on them from the second floor until one of them started crying and screaming and started saying ‘my heart.’ They brought the doctors to treat him and they thought he was going to die. After they brought six people and they beat them up until they dropped on the floor and one of them his nose was cut and the blood was running from his nose and he was screaming but no one was responding and all this beating from Graner and Davis and another man, whom I don’t know the name. The doctor came to stitch the nose and the Graner asked the doctor to learn how to stitch and it’s true, the guard learned how to stitch. He took the string and the needle and he sat down to finish the stitching until the operation succeeded. And then the other man came to take pictures of the injured person who was laying on the ground. Every time one of them fell on the ground, they drag them up to stand on his feet. Graner beat up a man whose name is Ali the Syrian and he was beating him until he gotten almost crazy. And he was telling him go up to the second floor as he was naked. And they opened the prisoners cells to see him running naked. And after they put him in his cell for four days they were pouring water on him and he couldn’t sleep. Before that he was in cell number 4. They hanged him and he was screaming but no one helped him.

"There was a translator named Abu Adell the Egyptian. He was helping Graner and Davis and others whom I don’t know, like they were watching a live movie of three young guys being put up by Abu Adell on top of each other. And everyone was taking pictures of this whole thing with cameras. This is what I saw and what I remember to be true."

THREE STRIKES AND YOU’RE OUT

The United States Supreme Court got one right. On Monday, May 25, a case concerning the San Diego Board of Supervisors was thrown out of court.

In 1996, the voters of the State of California overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative that made the use of marijuana legal for medical reasons. At the time of passage, the first step was to obtain a prescription from a doctor for the weed that has numerous medical uses. Once it became state law, various County Boards of Supervisors were ordered to begin a program in which people with a prescription would be granted identity cards. For recreational purposes, the use of marijuana was still illegal.

Most counties came on board and put together an identity card program. However, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors remained mute on the subject.

Then, in 2006, the San Diego County Board said it would refuse to grant identity cards. The reasons used were quite bizarre.

Bill Horn spoke of the horrendous impact that this would have on San Diego. He said that kids would be able to buy marijuana at locations solely designated for medical distribution. Then he said that San Diego would quickly become laden with violence and crime. Plus, according to Horn, any marijuana user would quickly graduate to the use of hard drugs, such as crack cocaine, heroin, or LSD.

This action opened up the flood gates for arrests of marijuana suppliers, who prior to the Supervisor’s decision, were not targeted by federal agents. Despite the law in California, the federal government still considers the use of marijuana to be a crime. Shortly after the Board’s announcement, federal agents swarmed San Diego and arrested users and suppliers alike, despite the state deeming its use for medical purposes to be legal. According to the federal authorities, a prescription alone did not get someone off the hook. They had to have an identity card issued by the County. Catch 22.

The next step was for the County Board of Supervisors to take the case to court and use the federal government’s laws on medical marijuana use as a basis for not giving identity cards. This was laughable. The San Diego County Board of Supervisors consists of five ultra-conservative members who have been on board for years. Many times, they have criticized the federal government for putting its nose into state and county business. To them, Washington was a hotbed of communism. Now, they switched their opinions and said they did not want to break federal law.

Before the first court case, many experts told the Board that they did not have a leg to stand on and suggested they drop the suit. They didn’t. The Board lost the first case and then appealed to a higher court, where they again lost. They spent millions of dollars on a losing case. This is the same group who, in the 1990s, almost shut down the County Medical Help services, causing thousands of people to be put on the street. Many died as a result. The reason for doing this was that the Board did not want to waste taxpayer money. But, spending millions of dollars on a superfluous legal battle was okay.

The last hope was that the U.S. Supreme Court would hear the case and rule in favor of the Supervisors. On Monday, word came out that the Supreme Court failed to even put the case on the docket. According to the North County Times of Monday, May 25, 2009:

The end of the game for the Board of Supervisors is the beginning of the game for patients and suppliers alike. They now can adhere to the wishes of the people of the state and also state law without having to look over their shoulders.

When Bill Horn first made the statement in 2006 about the County not issuing identity cards, I called the consulate of The Netherlands in Los Angeles to ask for materials about the Dutch government’s attitude toward cannabis use. I then quoted Bill Horn. The woman asked me, "Your putting me on, aren’t you?" I assured her that I was giving the exact quotes of Horn and cited the date of the report in the San Diego Union-Tribune.

I received a box in the mail a few days later. Inside was all sorts of information on the Dutch model of using cannabis. In addition, there were pages of scientific data compiled over the years that stated marijuana was not a "gateway" drug. The report concluded, "Cannabis use in The Netherlands harms neither the user nor society."

There is only reason I can think of that could have made the San Diego Board of Supervisors react to marijuana in such a manner. They may have attended a showing of the 1936 film "Reefer Madness" that depicted marijuana as a tool of the devil and a killer drug. When the movie came out, anti-drug people thought it would be an educational movie to keep people from using marijuana. That ploy backfired. Today, many people will show up to watch the movie at film festivals or local cinemas to enjoy a great laugh at the ridiculous stupidity of the film.

SOLD OUT

Lately, atheists in the U.S. have been quite happy to see that polls show the growth of non-belief in the U.S. A couple of decades ago, it was rare to see more than five percent of U.S. citizens admit to having "no religion." In the past few years, the number has grown considerably.

Some recent polls show that anywhere from 15-20% of U.S. citizens now say they do not practice a religion. It is almost impossible to say how many are atheists, agnostics or non-theists, particularly because of the stigma of the word "atheist" in the U.S. Many atheists still keep themselves deeply inside the closet.

Over the years, U.S. atheists have been highly critical of our Preachers-in-Chief. While campaigning for president in 1988, George Bush I said that atheists should not be considered U.S. citizens because they do not believe in God and the nation was built on a belief in God. Bill Clinton stated that he would never appoint an atheist to any position in government. Then, came Bush II who alleges that God chose him to run and that God told him to eliminate Osama bin-Laden and Saddam Hussein.

The biggest gripe atheists had with Bush was his implementation of the Faith Based Initiative. It came into existence by presidential decree, not a vote in Congress. Since its inception, billions of taxpayer dollars have been given to religious groups to administer social services. A few billion, as I have written about in the past, have gone to faith groups for overseas work. This money has been used to wreak havoc in Iraq and Afghanistan where Christian missionaries, military personnel and civilian alike, have tried, and still are trying, to convert Muslims to Christianity.

After the 2008 primaries, when the presidential race came down to McCain and Obama, a phenomenon occurred that I could not foresee: atheists began to speak about Obama in positive terms and almost turned him into a god-like figure.

I began to ask atheists why Obama was the panacea for the U.S. government and the Christian religion to finally dissolve their close relationship; one that was illegal and brought violence to foreign nations. I then asked if they saw any of Obama’s speeches or read about his views on religion and government. If they had, they would not have been so blindly supportive.

I asked if they knew that Obama’s mother had defied the laws of physics: she changed her religious views after her death. In 1995, Obama said she was "a lonely witness for secular humanism" in Indonesia. Many of her friends said she referred to herself as an atheist. It was evident that she did not rely on religious belief.

In 2006, Obama stated: "For all her professed secularism, my mother was in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I’ve ever known." A year later he was gaining more attention as a presidential candidate and he called his mother, "a Christian from Kansas."

Obama’s presidential campaign, at times, resembled a religious rally conducted by evangelical Christians. Then, a few days before the election, an event occurred in Pennsylvania that should have had all atheists up in arms. At a presidential rally attended by about 1,000 people, McCain and Obama sent spokespeople to put their cases forth. An atheist asked an Obama representative if, as president, Obama would meet with atheists and discuss the separation of religion and government. The Obama mouthpiece stated: "Senator Obama is no wacko atheist who wants your kids to marry trees."

When I mentioned this to atheist Obama supporters, they said that it was not Obama who said this, but a spokesperson. I assured them that the statement would not have been made if the spokesperson was not sure he was on firm ground.

After the election, atheists who supported Obama said we would now see the real Obama. In their fantasy world, they claimed that Obama would either scrap or considerably diminish the Faith Based Initiative. Obama spoke much of the Initiative, but, instead of annulling it, he announced a great enhancement to the program, including a hefty escalation of revenue. Most atheists still held out hope and became even stronger advocates of Obama.

Then, it happened. In Obama’s inauguration address, he spoke of the makeup of the U.S. citizenry. He said it consisted of "Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers." Many atheists thought our day of liberation had arrived. Two words meant that Obama would change the relationship between the government and religion. When all the atheists chirped these two words to me, I asked if they read the rest of Obama’s speech. None had. For the next few minutes, he heralded commitment by the U.S. public to be good citizens and participate in government activities. But, he constantly mentioned that people of faith would be at the forefront of the new America. In other words, atheists were good enough to be acknowledged as existing, but not good enough to participate in government. According to a USA Today article of January 22, 2009:

Since his inauguration, Obama has appointed many people to administer the burgeoning Faith Based initiative. His commitment to bring religion even closer to government is blatantly evident.

In the past few weeks, we have seen horrendous events unfold in which U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force personnel are teaching their military underlings that they can only be good soldiers or airmen if they fight for Jesus. Many military people (atheists, Jews, Muslims, and Christians) have come forth and spoken of disciplinary actions taken against them because they complained about the religious aspect being shoved down their throats. Obama knows of these programs, but he has been silent about them.

A few years ago, a film called "Christian Embassy" emerged. It showed many U.S. Department of Defense and Department of State staff speaking of this entity, situated in the Pentagon. It shocked many people. One of the participants in the film was Secretary of the Army, General Pete Geren. When Obama was finally seated in the White House, various secular groups thought they were on strong ground in asking Obama not to re-appoint Geren. Their pleas fell on deaf ears. Geren is still Secretary of the Army.

A few days ago GQ Magazine published secret memos sent to George Bush by Don Rumsfeld during April 2003 that gave up-to-date information, with pictures, of military action in Iraq. Above each picture was a biblical quote depicting how it was the right thing to bring Christianity to Iraq. They have been publicly shown, so Obama must know about them. Again, silence.

Two words bought off atheists. This is the most horrendous and ridiculous purchase since the Dutch bought Manhattan for $24 from the Native American population. Our votes and support came cheap. But, in the long run, we will pay much for our actions.

I don’t blame Obama as much as I do those atheists who built him up to be something he isn’t. He gave no indication that he was going to upset the right-wing Christian/U.S. government alliance, yet many atheists succumbed to suspension of disbelief. They went against their strongest intellectual trait of skepticism.

Here are the links to the video "Christian Embassy" and the photo images of Rumsfeld’s messages to George Bush. They are quite shocking and should be a wakeup call for all of the U.S., not only atheists.

http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/Media_video/christian-embassy/index.html

http://men.style.com/gq/features/topsecret

CHRISTIANITY AS WEAPON

There is a storm brewing because of U.S. soldiers bringing bibles into Afghanistan and distributing them to the local population. According to Al-Jazeera News in a report on May 4, 2009, called "Probe Call in Afghan ‘Convert’ Row:"

This may be news for some, but I have been following the religious activities of the U.S. military for years. There is an in-depth program that has been in place for some time in which officers indoctrinate soldiers to fight in the name of Jesus.

Currently, the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force are heavily involved in teaching their underlings that a soldier can only be considered to be a good combatant if he/she is fighting for Jesus. Merely obeying military rules and going to war when ordered are not sufficient. Jesus is the soldier’s 18-star general.

I mention Christianity because this is the only religion being taught by the officers in the indoctrination. Muslims, Jews, and those who practice a religion other than Christianity, even though they are in the U.S. military, are being ostracized.

In the past year, several atheists stepped forward to complain. They were told by the higher-ups that this is not happening. Subject closed. Most received disciplinary actions for making such outrageous statements. Then, a Jewish soldier reported that he was beat up by other soldiers, while their sergeant looked the other way, because he complained about the Christian indoctrination. Finally, some Christians came forward and said they were offended that their religion was being used to justify the killing of people. In all instances, the aggrieved parties wrote to the Department of Defense, only to be told that it is illegal to do the things they stated and that the U.S. military does not have any part of it. In other words, the soldiers were told they were lying.

Many atheists in the U.S. are well aware of such occurrences. We have read report-after-report from soldiers who have been ostracized. Some send our groups letters asking what they can do. We refer them to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, a watch-dog organization for stopping religious indoctrination in the U.S. military. In the past two years, the number of cases the Military Religious Freedom Foundation has received from military personnel has risen dramatically. All complaints talk of the escalation of the Christian preaching they are receiving. So far, despite hundreds of pieces of correspondence, the replies from the Department of Defense to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation is basically the same as those given to the individuals: this is illegal and it isn’t happening.

Iraq has undergone a bombardment of imported bibles and Christian missionaries. One soldier in Afghanistan stated, "... the expressions that I got from the people in Iraq [were] just phenomenal, they were hungry for the word." I recently read that the allegations of sending bibles to Iraq came as a surprise to U.S. officials. This is nothing more than pure horseshit. In addtion to the articles I have written about the influx of bibles into Iraq, the Boston Globe daily newspaper has run several piece since 2003 concerning bibles in Iraq as well as billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars funding missionary work to convert Iraqi Muslims to Christianity.

Because I am aware of the background of military religious indoctrination, I don’t see these missionary actions as being incredible. However, I do find it quite outrageous that very little publicity has been given to these activities until now. Christians have wreaked havoc in Iraq with their evangelistic zeal. Tens, or hundreds, of thousands of bibles have been sent to Iraq, causing much chaos in the Christian community as well as the Islamic community. For some reason, the U.S. Christian missionaries thought they would be welcomed with open arms by Iraqi Christians. Instead, they were welcomed by the bottom of a shoe.

In my book, The Mother of All Battles: The Endless U.S.-Iraq War, I devote more than 25 pages to the use of Christianity as a weapon in the buildup to and the execution of the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. Military officers attended church services, in uniform, at which they spoke of the merits of invading Iraq. Some held a picture of Saddam Hussein and said he was "satan."

Below is an article I wrote four years ago about the quandary of trying to export evangelistic Christianity to Iraq. It’s too bad that it took four years for the public to learn of the religious mission of the U.S. military. The unfortunate aspect of this is that many U.S. citizens support such efforts.May 23, 2005

JUST WHAT EVERY IRAQI NEEDS: A BIBLE

Enough is enough for the Christian community in Iraq. The head of Iraq’s largest Christian community, Patriarch Emmanuel Delly, recently scathingly attacked the evangelical Christians who have taken their crusade to Iraq since the illegal U.S. invasion of March 2003.

Delly told Al-Jazeera News on May 19 that Iraq did not need Christian missionaries because its churches dated back long before Protestantism. He objected to the aspect of trying to convert Muslims and said, "You can’t even talk about that here."

According to Delly, the evangelicals attract poor youths with displays of money and then "take them out in cars to have fun. Then, they take photos and send them here, to Germany, to the United States and say 'look how many Muslims have become Christian.’"

Delly was a strong opponent of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. When he was asked if he had contacts with U.S. authorities, he said:

Frankly, I try to avoid meeting them as much as possible. They are the occupiers. The occupied don’t want to be occupied. That’s human nature.

To me, it is problematic that Christian evangelical organizations from the United States are now flooding Bibles into Iraq when, prior to March 2003, few knew the location of the country, and fewer still could point out Iraq on a map. In fact, many cheered on the March 2003 invasion.

Pat Robertson was openly hostile toward Iraq. He accused the U.S. administration of being soft on Iraq. Yet, his group had thousands of Bibles to take to the country once the U.S. destroyed it.

Jerry Falwell, another U.S. icon to the evangelical citizenry of the U.S. was in on the venture as well. In 2002, he said that, according to his interpretation of Christianity, Mohammed was a terrorist. Therefore, kicking the merde out of a country populated by a Muslim majority was necessary in the fight against terrorism.

In July 2002, I interviewed George Galloway, the peace activist who recently won a seat in the British Parliament. He told me how religious groups in England and Europe were paramount in the peace effort. Then, I told him how many U.S. religious organizations were calling for war and he was quite surprised. We talked for a while on the difference between U.S. evangelical Christianity and the Christianity practiced in Europe.

By the autumn of 2002, various U.S. groups had placed orders for thousands of Bibles, in the anticipation of an invasion. Robertson bragged about how many thousand he had on hand to use when the time came.

After the invasion, Iraq was flooded with Bibles and U.S. citizens teaching the Iraqis the errors of their ways. They would save the morally-corrupt Iraqis and get them away from their religion of Islam.

The missionaries have paid a price. In March 2004, four U.S. Baptist missionaries were killed in Iraq. The following month, seven South Korean Presbyterians were kidnapped, but eventually released. Two months later, a South Korean evangelical Christian was beheaded.

When word gets back to the U.S. about such violence, it only adds fuel to the already rabid ideas of the evangelicals. To them, their warped opinions had been proven: the barbarians must be tamed and only Christ can do that.

As an atheist, I am neutral about religion. I do not denigrate the aspect of various faiths unless, as in the case of some fundamentalist Christians, the concepts of science or knowledge are under threat. Or, if a religion is outright racist or homophobic, I will state my opposition to those aspects. But, I do not consider one religion to be superior to another.

Today, evangelical Christianity has been self-appointed to change everyone in the world and make them adhere to the evangelical mode of Christianity. This is where it differs from most world religions. Just imagine a hoard of Muslims arriving in the U.S. with thousands of copies of the Koran and publicly stating they were about to save the population of the country. Within hours, there would be many new cells erected at Guantanamo and the Muslims would have an all-expenses paid trip to Cuba.

Campus Crusade for Christ is an outfit based in Orlando, Florida. The name is fairly well-known and little-criticized because most people assume they do good work. The name of the organization sounds benign, however, its work is far from harmless. On its website, you can see dozens of pictures of Bible-thumping in Iraq. Also, there is the mandatory "Send us your money" message.

Let me highlight a few statements made from its "Bibles for the Middle East" section:

* People in this part of the world are desperate for such materials. 2004 was declared the Year of the Bible throughout the Arab world and interest is high. Thousands of people are seeking to receive a copy of the Bible.
* So, with a new year before us and so many opportunities on the horizon, would you consider a gift of $50 to get 25 Bibles into the hands of people in spiritually dark countries? Whatever you could do would be a tremendous blessing during a time of great spiritual hunger.
* People in these nations are hungry for God’s Word, our staff are willing to risk their lives to deliver it.

Another section called "Iraq Schoolbags" offers the following statements:

* Praise God with me. Because thanks to your prayers and gifts, the doors are open to share the love of Christ with the next generation of Iraqis — young boys and girls who are open to new ideas and who are the future teachers of their nation.
* Continuing a strategy first launched last year, their goal is to distribute 100,000 school bags to these little ones, each fitted with urgently needed paper, pencils, and other school materials, along with evangelistic children’s books. In this way, just weeks from now, thousands of future Iraqi leaders will have the opportunity to come to know Christ.
* I’m sure you praise God with me for this excitement and for the fact that, thanks to this distribution, a generation of Iraqis is finally hearing the Truth about Christ.

From 1991 until 2003, Iraq was unable to import paper and pencils for its students. Many times, the Iraqi government pleaded with the world to rectify this injustice. Where was the Campus Crusade for Christ? Most of its affiliated groups are ultra-conservative and supported the sanctions against Iraq.

Today, the organization takes credit for bringing pencils and paper to Iraq. But, inside the package is the obligatory Christian propaganda. I would commend them if they supplied only pencils and paper, but if that were the criteria, the group would stay home in Florida.

Iraq’s Christians have been in existence for almost 10-times longer than the United States. The country is well aware of Christianity.

Until March 2003, Iraqi Christians and Muslims lived in peace. Neither side tried to convert the other. Even Jews lived in Iraq in harmony. But, the new Iraq is on the verge of sectarian violence that could become ugly. All because of the intervention of the U.S.

Christian evangelists who travel to Iraq to save the savages are merely taking a cue from their masters in Washington. They are so ignorant that they think Iraqis have never heard of Christ and must be taught to see the light. In reality, most Iraqi Christians and Muslims are probably more knowledgeable about Christianity’s history than the light-skinned invaders from the Florida group.

U.S. bombs and missiles destroyed the physical portion of Iraq. Now, zealous missionaries are trying to destroy the belief system of Iraq. Fortunately, for the Iraqi people, neither ploy has worked to destroy their will. Resistance works at many levels.

UNLIKELY SUPPORTERS OF FAIRNESS TO IRAQ (BEFORE MARCH 2003)

On May 2, Jack Kemp died. He is now receiving the standard accolades. Mostly, he is being mentioned as the great conservative who supported the programs of Ronald Reagan and successive political conservatives. This may be so, but not one word has been written about his efforts in the 1990s for a quick end to the Iraqi embargo. To me, along with his great prowess in the sport of American football, this should be his greatest legacy.

Most people forgot about Iraq’s plight after March 1991. After all, the U.S. had just kicked the Iraqis out of Kuwait and there was an embargo affixed. Few realized just how severe the embargo would turn out and also that if Iraq, which it did, acquiesced to the terms of the embargo it would not be lifted as long as Saddam Hussein was in power. There was no document stating this, but it was well-known.

Many armchair leftists blame two Bushes for the illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq and consequently all the suffering the people endured during the embargo. The facts, however, show this is a fallacy.

In 1993, Warren Christopher, Bill Clinton’s first Secretary of State, said many times that the embargo would not be lifted with Saddam in power. Nobody listened, but he was accurate.

His successor, Madeleine Albright, was even more vocal. In a nationwide interview, she was asked if the deaths of three-quarters of a million children were worth keeping the embargo in place. She coldly answered, "Yes."

Bill Richardson, a U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations under Clinton, ordered his staff never to speak to any Iraqi at the U.N.

Shortly before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, Scott Ritter came clean in putting facts in place that occurred during the inspection years. He concluded that Iraq had done everything asked of it to lift the sanctions, but they would never be lifted under Saddam’s leadership.

Imagine, three million deaths because of the ethnocentric actions of various U.S. governments. It was evident that few, if any, U.S. politicos had any idea about the country of Iraq. They had never spoken to an Iraqi, except for Ahmed Chalabi, and this was a big game of oneupsmanship.

During the 1990s, even the peace groups in the U.S. opposed making an issue of the Iraqi embargo. When I called the San Diego ones and invited them to attend demonstrations, they let it immediately be known they would not touch "the Iraq thing." However, in late 2002 and early 2003, they came to the forefront and opposed the upcoming invasion. It was too late. They are hypocrites and only speak up when it is in vogue to do so. They are just as much to blame for Iraq’s plight today as the warmongers.

However, there were a few unlikely players in the 1990s who actually thought it was disgusting to keep the embargo in place. No, they were not solely the usual people, such as Ramsey Clark, who consistently tried to keep the message in the public arena. Two, in particular, were conservatives: the late Jude Wanniski, who died in 2005 at his computer while writing an article about Iraq and the conservative Republican, Jack Kemp, former U.S. vice-presidential candidate, who died a few days ago.

Below, I have reprinted a few columns by Wanniski who adamantly supported the immediate cessation of the sanctions. In addition, he researched and wrote the truth about Iraq and its government at a time when that was not a popular pursuit in the U.S.

Kemp was a retired U.S. football player. He was magnificent on the field. After retiring, he became involved with politics and was known for his conservative views. Let me make the distinction between conservative and an idiot. Kemp was a man of integrity and fairness who espoused conservative economic policies. Many so-called Republican conservatives are idiots. Kemp was in the minority. In fact, he ran afoul of many of his Republican cohorts because of his opposition to racism and his support of helping the poor and unemployed in the U.S.

In 1996, when no one wanted to run for vice-president with the presidential candidate Bob Dole, Kemp volunteered. It was clear that Dole was about to get thrashed and anyone running with him would end his/her political career. Kemp stepped forward for the good of his party, yet few today acknowledge his act of self-sacrifice.

In 1997, when Kemp asked the Clinton administration why the Iraq issue could not be quickly dealt with and the embargo ended, he was told not to touch the issue. He was irate when told that every U.S. person attached to the U.N. team from the U.S. was given orders not to talk to an Iraqi at the U.N. If they were approached by an Iraqi, they were to immediately leave the area without saying a word. Kemp questioned how the years-long issue of the embargo could be addressed if no one could talk to an Iraqi. He began to speak of the issue and tried to get enough backers to go along with him. Sadly, few followed his lead.

Following are various articles written by Jude Wanniski about Iraq and Kemp’s ordeal of trying to end the embargo. They range in dates from 1997 to 2005. Wanniski had contacts at all levels of government and the press. He was far ahead of his time. These are chronicles of two conservative Republicans who put more effort into dealing fairly with Iraq than all the Democrats in the U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, governorships, mayorships, and city councilpeople combined.

November 19, 1997

Memo To: Norman Smith
From: Jude Wanniski
Re: Saint Saddam

In your note this morning, remonstrating with me for defending Saddam, you suggest my contrariness would go down easier with you if I did not present him as "a perfectly reasonable statesman." First of all, I do not believe Saddam is a demon, nutcake or madman. He does have a narrow view of the world, which we have to take into account in dealing with him. It has been in the process of demonizing Saddam, in order to cast our foreign policy in a way that could justify starving the people of Iraq in hopes they would rise up and pull him down, that our political establishment drew the caricature of him that you carry in your mind. I don’t think of heads of state as good guys or bad guys. They are the products of their times, their cultures, and their people’s needs and concerns. To me, evil is ignorance. Hitler and Stalin were greatly evil in the enormous ignorance of their attitudes and behavior. It was also evil of our forefathers to enslave the black man on the grounds that he was a subspecies of the white man. Holocausts take different forms throughout history, always based on evil.

The Prince of Darkness blinds us to reality in order to make us sin. When we refuse to listen to an enemy’s arguments and opinions, by plugging our ears or jamming his radio waves, we are acting in the spirit of that Prince. In this case, it is our government and our Establishment that is plugging its ears, fearful that the American people will discover the evil we have done in the last seven years by conducting a cynical foreign policy against Iraq. Does it matter to you that several hundred thousand Iraqi children have died of disease and malnutrition because Iraq can’t buy the calories to feed them? I ask the question seriously, Norman, because I’m shocked to find so many people who are asked that question say it does not bother them in the least. When Louis Farrakhan compared the suffering of the children of Iraq to the Holocaust, he was called anti-Semitic. When Madeleine Albright, then UN Ambassador, was asked if it was worth the lives of 500,000 children to pull down Saddam, she said it was. What else could she say, confronted with the UN report?

If you agree with my definition of evil, do you not agree that our government is acting in the spirit of the Prince of Darkness, by refusing to allow our U.N. Ambassador, Bill Richardson, to talk to his Iraqi counterpart? Is it not evil for us to kill any request that Iraq be allowed to take the stand in its own defense at the Security Council before we issue the death penalty and carry out its execution? Do you think it is possible for the United States to act in evil ways? Or do we get a free pass? Here is The Wall Street Journal this morning, my alma mater, making the arguments to its readers, the ruling elite, that the reason we are getting no support from our old allies in the coalition is that they are afraid of Saddam. If we could only ask them by secret ballot, they would all agree we should execute Saddam and all his progeny. It never seems to occur to those who make this argument that the same people who they say are afraid of Saddam now that he is defeated, crippled and broke were perfectly willing to join us in coalition when we knew he had a million men under arms, and we suspected he had weapons of mass destruction at his immediate disposal.

This is evil sophistry, a shadow of darkness having fallen over our political Establishment, which now believes its own propaganda. This justifies our acting alone, does it not, for we can tell ourselves that the rest of the world, no matter what it says about us openly and at the UN, really wants us to kill this man as we have been killing the Iraqi people? Don’t you think Hitler was able to persuade the people of Germany through propaganda that the rest of the world would secretly be happy to be rid of the Jews once and for all? Wasn’t Stalin able to persuade the people of the USSR that the blood he was forced to spill was in order to rid the world of the evil capitalists? We defeated these twin evils and now we are at the top of the world, triumphant, and all I see, Norman, are signs that we can justify our behavior not on any international rule of law or guiding principles of common law, but by the fact that we have the means to get what we want, when we want it. The WSJournal this morning says again that we should have broken our word to the UN and the Arab League in 1991 and marched all the way to Baghdad. The author of the same editorial says history shows that Eisenhower should have marched to Berlin (and then to Moscow?) instead of halting at the Elbe. We should have marched to Beijing instead of halting at the 38th parallel in the Korean war.

Civilized behavior to me suggests the Golden Rule, that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. When civilization breaks down in wartime, all is fair. But when we become triumphant in peacetime, the Golden Rule should apply. That means we must be prepared to hear the petitions of those who we like the least. It is easy to hear the petitions of those we love. On a scale of one to a hundred, with your wife being number one, I have no doubt that Saddam is number one hundred. As an individual, you can hope for the untimely death of Saddam and so might I, but as a nation, we must bind ourselves to standards of behavior that will be recognized as good, not evil, by the other people of the world.

It has been my experience throughout my 61 years of life that political people are often sanctified for insufficient reason, and are then found by history to have been evil, while others are demonized, and found after their executions to have been innocent. It is a contrarian role I play, and I admit I am not always happy with those I choose to defend, but what has made us the greatest country in the history of the world is our willingness to submerge our individual passions and hatreds to a transparent system of justice, where the least of us is given his day in court, with a lawyer if need be, paid by the taxpayers.

MEXICAN INFLUENZA OR ISRAELI STUPIDITY?

Every day, we read about the escalation of a new strain of swine flu. Citizens of various countries have been diagnosed with it. But, this is not the first time the swine flu has struck. After World War I, cases broke out. In 1976, a U.S. soldier was diagnosed as having swine flu. Forty million U.S. citizens took precautionary measures and were inoculated. In 2007, areas of The Philippines saw the flu come to fruition.

With a history of outbreaks, one would think that the halting of its current spread would be the most important item on the agenda for the health of human beings. However, not all people consider these actions to be as important as the name of the malady. According to an Associated Press article of April 27, 2009, called "Israeli Official: Swine Flu Name Offensive:"

This short statement is untrue, illogical, non-scientifically-based and outright racist. First, the swine flu is contracted by humans who handle afflicted pigs, not Mexicans. Then it is spread by germs emitted from the person who handled the pig. The meat of the pig is safe to eat and has nothing to do with the spread of swine flu. In some areas of the U.S., those who have the flu, as well as those who have been in contact with them, are in quarantine.

I find it quite troubling that an Israeli official would consider himself qualified to speak for the religion of Islam. Many Israeli officials have contributed to the extinction of Muslims. However, Litzman included Muslims as victims of this alleged misnomer.

Before I wrote this article, I called four Muslim colleagues and asked if the word "pig" or "swine" was offensive. They laughed and said, "of course not." Just because they don’t eat pork does not mean the use of the name of a mammal is offensive. One even told me that he has heard Muslims state they are happy that the name of the flu is "swine" because it enforces their beliefs against eating pork. My colleague did not agree with this denigration, but he thought it quite ridiculous that an Israeli would comment on behalf of Muslims.

The story doesn’t end there. A day after the Israeli objection, U.S. officials pondered changing the name of virus. According to an Associated Press article of April 28, 2009 (What’s in a Name? Government Says "Swine Flu Misrepresents Nature of Virus, Wants to Change Name):

Swine flu has been called swine flu since it was discovered. A few years ago, we had the bird flu. No one complained of naming the flu after the creatures who spread it. Now, Israel officials are offended.

The official reason behind the U.S. desire to change the name is that it may harm the pork industry. But, coming about 24 hours after the Israelis’ complaint, and with no one ever suggesting a change of nomenclature before, one can question whether the Israelis pressured the U.S. government. It may be just coincidence, but the time-frame of events leads to legitimate questioning of the U.S. desire to rename the swine flu.

Porky Pig has been a cartoon character for many decades. He appeared in filmed cartoons as well as print versions. The friendly and helpful pig was not a trickster like some of this colleagues, such as Daffy Duck. He was the universal "good guy."

He did have one quirk, however, that made him famous: he stuttered, but he always recovered and ended his talking with coherence. At the end of a Porky Pig cartoon, he would appear and say, "Th … Th … That’s All Folks." This statement, usually without a stutter, has become commonplace in the U.S. version of the English language. When a TV show ends, or a sports event, or a social meeting, someone always says, "That’s All Folks."

If one looks online, you will see various books for sale in Hebrew in which Porky Pig is the star. He is a well-known and liked character in Israel. But, if Litzman has his way, we may soon see Porky Pig on Israeli TV for his retirement program telling the Israeli citizens, "That’s All Folks" for the last time.

CLINTON IS ON THE WRONG TRACK

Hilary Clinton has changed her views on Iraq so many times that she would make a leopard who changed his spots jealous. Let’s look at the quote she made on October 10, 2002 about Iraq:

The following day, the U.S. Senate voted to give George Bush a green light to use military force against Iraq. Clinton voted "yea" with the majority. Only 23 senators opposed the legislation.

After things began to turn sour for the U.S. in Iraq, Clinton became a vocal opponent of the war. However, she never admitted to being wrong on her Senate vote. When asked why she opposed the war while voting for it a few years before, she never gave a coherent answer.

U.S. public opinion began to swing in favor of a U.S. withdrawal. On January 13, 2007, Clinton made a trip to Iraq and concluded that the war was a losing cause for the U.S. She was now a "peace" candidate. After meeting al-Maliki, she met the press and gave some juicy quotes to ABC News:

• In an exclusive interview with ABC News in Baghdad, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., called the situation in Iraq "heartbreaking" and said she doubts Congress and the American people believe the mission here can succeed.
• "I don’t know that the American people or the Congress at this point believe this mission can work," she said. "And in the absence of a commitment that is backed up by actions from the Iraqi government, why should we believe it?"
• "I’m skeptical that the Iraqi government will do what they have promised to do, and that I think is the concern of all of us who have heard this before," she said. "All the promises, and intentions in the world don’t substitute for action and we haven’t seen a lot of action."

The article also mentioned: Clinton traveled wearing body armor and surrounded by a phalanx of soldiers and security guards.

There is one thing for sure that Ms. Clinton never mentioned. If she decided to leave the Green Zone and take an unguarded tour of the city of Baghdad dressed as she was in the Green Zone, she probably would be found chopped to pieces in some alley way with a message such as "pervert" written on her body. If this is the "right track," I wonder what would have to happen until she would say that Iraq was on the wrong track. Actually, she did say that, but not about today’s Iraq. She implied the "wrong track" about the non-violent and productive Iraq prior to the March 2003 invasion. I’ll leave it to the reader to assess which Iraq was going on the "right track."

CALLING A SPADE A SPADE

The U.S. prides itself on the concept of freedom of speech. So much so, that it invades nations and tells the world that the vanquished countries did not practice freedom of speech.

But, this self-admiration is far from the truth. Freedom of speech American style only exists if the words spoken by foreigners, or by their own citizens, agree with the words the powers-to-be select. We’ve seen this time-and-again when countries the U.S. does not admire votes "the wrong way."

The recent conference on racism in Geneva is a case in point. The U.S. did not even attend. Worse still, the delegates of various countries left the conference when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the attendees and stated that Israel had a "cruel and repressive racist regime."

Now, Ahmadinejad may not be the brightest person on the block, but his statement was quite accurate. Anyone who has not been in a coma for the past decade has seen the inhumane and bloody treatment of Palestinians and Lebanese as they were the recipients of cluster bombs and phosphorous weapons. Many Israelis themselves have condemned their government’s apartheid system as well as its heavy-handedness toward Arabs.

To me, an international conference on racism should be wide open. If someone accuses a nation of practicing racism, the offendee should rise and debate the issue. No, this conference was not set up for that. It was merely a show for some nations to get together and have the delegates pat each other on the back.

The hypocrisy was rampant. I am sure that if some delegate called Robert Mugabe a racist, the U.S. would have applauded, even though it did not attend. Every nation is open for being labeled "racist," except Israel.

Now, let’s look at the responses from some of the enlightened people who were offended by the statement against Israel. Many called Ahmadinejad a "Nazi." Others said he was as bad as Hitler.

According to an Al-Jazeera News report of April 21, 2009:

Dershowitz is representative of the thought process of many in the West: if you criticize Israel, you hate Jews and want to kill them. Never was the term "Jew" mentioned in Ahmadinejad’s address; only criticism of the Israeli government.

Here we have an outrage against a statement made about Israel’s policy. But, the "enlightened" progressive liberals uttered far more hate in their statements than Ahmadinejad. "Hitler’s successor," to me, is far more denigrating and hate-filled than what the Israeli government was called.

A couple of columns ago, I carried an article written by Husayn al-Kurdi about Israel’s large nuclear weapons program. It’s there, but no one wants to talk about it. The same goes for Israel’s discriminatory actions: they are kept silent.

A delegates of a bunch of countries left the speech in protest of Ahmadinejad’s statement. Here is the list. It’s almost hilarious to see the delegates of some of these countries who, until recently, occupied foreign lands. They had to be coerced into allowing the indigenous people to be able to run their own affairs. Yet, saying the Israeli government represents a "cruel and repressive racist regime," is out of bounds. Take a look at the nations involved with the walkout and you will see illogic and hypocrisy at its utmost.

Austria, Belgium, Britain, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Morocco, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, St. Kitts and Nevis, and Sweden.

A large portion of these nations at one time held real estate in other countries. Remember, there was a time when Portugal and Spain were trying to outdo each other in claiming discoveries of lands that had been in existence for thousands of years. The pope became a mediator and he drew a line that created two halves of the planet. Spain was to be awarded one half and Portugal the other half. Other nations on the list who may not have been imperialists have been bought off by the U.S. Today, the U.S. and Israel have replaced the pope as arbitrator in the distribution of the planet’s land.

GOING WAY TOO FAR

From the age of eight until 34, I was immersed in baseball. I played in various leagues in the U.S. and from 1975 to 1982, I promoted and coached baseball in England and The Netherlands. When I walked off the field after the last game of the 1982 season in Rotterdam, I knew I would never step foot on a baseball field again. I was burned out.

When I returned to the U.S. and relocated to San Diego, I still had some affinity to baseball and I occasionally went to see the San Diego Padres major league baseball club play.

In all my years of active baseball, I never had to say the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S., or any other, flag. There was never one religious or patriotic song played at the venues I played in. However, when I attended the San Diego Padre games, I had to listen to the U.S. National Anthem that was played prior to the start of the game. I felt very uncomfortable with this mixture of patriotism and baseball, so I would go down the ramp to the snack bar area while the song was being played. There always were a few people doing the same thing. We never talked to each other, but we all knew why we were there. Once the song ended, we returned to our seats.

For years, there was a tradition in U.S. major league baseball in which the song "Take Me Out to the Ball Game" was played during the seventh-inning stretch; a time in which the game was two-thirds completed and everyone stood up to stretch. Some sang along with the song, while others just listened. This was baseball. Nobody shoved patriotism or God down the fans’ throats.

That all changed after 9-11. Most clubs began playing "God Bless America" at their home games. But, after a while, they reverted to playing "Take Me Out to the Ball Game."

The New York Yankees have kept the religious and patriotic song as part of their repertoire. To this day, each Yankee home game consists of the playing of "God Bless America" during the seventh-inning stretch.

I have written about the sport of baseball in the U.S. becoming a pro-war political statement. A few times a year, the San Diego Padres take to the field dressed in military camouflage. Other clubs have "Support the Troops" nights. This is bad enough, but the New York Yankees have surpassed all the other patriotic antics of other clubs.

According to an Associated Press article, "Fan Cries Foul Over Ejection from Yankee Stadium," published on April 15, 2009:

A CHANGE OF HEART OR JUST CROCODILE TEARS?

In the past couple of weeks, Human Rights Watch (HRW) has been vocal about war crimes committed by Israel in its invasion and destruction of Gaza. Currently, the group is featuring Israel’s use of white phosphorus, a chemical agent that burns people alive, and is illegal under international laws of combat to use against civilians. According to the Huffington Post of March 26, 2009:

Normally, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are long on accusations of human rights violations by countries not in the U.S. sphere of influence. Rarely, if ever, is Israel mentioned. But, HRW appears to be going for the jugular in this case.

Many fair-minded people should be quite happy to see such vigilance by HRW against Israel’s use of white phosphorus. But, there are a couple of lingering incidents that can allow people to be dubious about the reason behind HRW’s allegation.

In 2004, Fallujah was a major battlefield for the U.S. against Iraqis who opposed the U.S. occupation. Untold thousands of Iraqis died. The U.S. made liberal use of white phosphorus. We saw many bodies that consisted mostly of bones with melted skin hanging from them. At first, the U.S. denied using the chemical weapon, but eyewitnesses and many photos came forth to prove the horror.

Where was HRW when this was occurring? I checked dozens of pages on search engines before I wrote this story to see if I had missed any reports of HRW condemning the U.S. for its use of white phosphorus. There was not one line of any article that showed HRW spoke of the atrocities inflicted against the people of Fallujah.

It is evident that HRW is no fan of the Arab world, so it was quite surprising to see them put so much time and effort into reporting Israeli atrocities against Palestinians. My assessment is that HRW is bigoted against Iraqis more than other Arabs. And, although usually unspeakable against Israeli war crimes, they stepped forward to criticize them. But, U.S. actions of the same dimension, or worse, still remain unreported. Logic tells me that HRW hates Iraqis more than other Arabs, and will sacrifice its normal lack of candor against Israel for the sake of being mute about U.S. war crimes.

Human Rights Watch is the same group that assessed the figure of 182,000 Kurds killed by the Ba’ath regime during 1988 in the Anfal Campaign. The major problem with this assertion is that not one HRW person went to Iraq to try to find the evidence. Another problem was the lack of bodies, but these "minor" points did not stop HRW from using the long publicly-accepted number of 182,000.

In November 2003, the U.S. and U.K. governments announced that more than 400,000 bodies had been discovered in mass graves in Iraq. A few months after, the disclosure of the finding of almost a half million bodies, something occurred that drastically altered the story. On July 18, 2004, the headline of the day for the British newspaper, The Independent, stated: "British Prime Minister Admits Graves Claim Untrue." According to the article:

Even though almost five years have passed since the truth emerged, the 400,000 figure is still included in the USAID website, along with other absurdities such as:

The same July 18, 2004 article from The Independent delved into the allegations of elevated figures attributed to Saddam Hussein and the Ba’ath regime in the north of the country. For instance, it mentioned that Human Rights Watch admitted that it had to drastically decrease the figures of deaths and could not give an accurate figure.

Hania Mufti, who performed research and produced the original inflated figures of deaths in the north of Iraq, stated: "Our estimates were based on estimates. The eventual figure was based in part on circumstantial information gathered over the years."

Human Rights Watch was silent over the deaths of many Iraqis in Fallujah, but it was very vocal in attributing 182,000 fictitious deaths to the Ba’ath regime. Any group who can come up with such an enormous number of deaths and state that its proof was "estimates based on estimates" and on "circumstantial information" must remain suspect in its reason for accusing Israel of war crimes. I hope the proof they have against Israel is more credible than that of the group’s still-believed number of Kurds killed in 1988 in Iraq.

WHERE ARE WE TODAY?

For the past five years or so, Iraq was always in the headlines. In the past few months, the plight of the country is mentioned less-and-less. President Obama has told us all that Afghanistan is the number one threat to the U.S.

Pundit-after-pundit has hailed the diminishing violence in Iraq. There is a Santa Claus. Iraq is now peaceful and the Iraqi people are free. This newly-assessed theory about Iraq is false. There is still much violence, only the players may have changed. Many U.S. forces stick close-by their barracks as the new Iraqi police and military forces take over security. There has been a recent increase in resistance attacks that has devastated some Iraqi police forces and military personnel. We are not reading about this in the West. Plus, electricity and clean water supplies are just as minuscule as they were after the March 2003 invasion.

If an Iraqi lapsed into a coma before March 2003 and recovered today, he/she would not recognize Iraq. Plus, the person would probably prefer to relapse because of the horrible nightmare that is today’s Iraq.

The country has no leadership. There is a U.S.-appointed "government" that must reside in the heavily-fortified Green Zone in Baghdad. If any of the members stroll outside this area without the benefit of being guarded by tanks and other military hardware, his/her life-span would be measured in minutes.

Women are prisoners in their own homes. Since 2003, hundreds have been killed and thousands have been raped and tortured because of "immoral" behavior: dressing in an un-Islamic manner. The U.S. prides itself on the progress of women in its society, but it has yet to utter one word of condemnation of the plight of Iraqi women.

Iraq has an education system that is in shambles, despite it having been the finest in the Arab world for decades prior to 2003. Electricity is a luxury that millions of Iraqis have for only a few hours a week. Raw sewage is rampant and is the cause of many illnesses.

The new Iraq that emerged after the U.S.-led "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is not free and it holds little resemblance to the Iraq it replaced. If it were not so horrendous a result, the new Iraq could be considered a bad joke. However, no one is laughing.

By mid-2008, the U.S. heralded a diminishing of violence in Iraq. The numbers of U.S. casualties have decreased. The reason for this is not because Iraq is becoming more sedate. The U.S. has pulled many of its troops away from the battle areas and replaced them with Iraqi forces. Mosul was a venue of heavy fighting in 2008 as the U.S. and Iraqi stooges tried to tame the city. In one battle, the Iraqi resistance killed more than 450 Iraqi military personnel. In the West, this was not mentioned because Iraqis took the place of what once would have been U.S. troops. Mosul is still yet to be "tamed" by the occupiers or the quislings.

In the first three years of occupation, more than 15,000 Iraqi police were killed by the resistance because they were considered collaborators. If one police person is killed on duty in the U.S., there is a national mourning.

Even the terminology has been tweaked to evade reality. During World War II, the French resistance was considered a patriotic entity because it fought the German occupiers. The same is true of the Iraqi resistance, yet the U.S. is the occupier and calls those who participate in the resistance "terrorists."

In 1973, Iraq nationalized its oil. It finally became free of the imperialist stranglehold placed on it by the West decades earlier. The nationalizing of Iraqi oil was the main reason behind the miraculous growth of the nation’s economy, infrastructure, and social services. In 2008, the stooges in Baghdad, prompted by their puppet masters in Washington, D.C., began to negotiate to sell off Iraqi oil rights to foreign firms. One U.S. oil executive said, "We’ve waited 35 years for this and now we’re back."

The March 2003 invasion of Iraq created conditions in which Iraq lost its past. Antiquities were destroyed by the new appointed "government" and Iraq’s history has been re-written in Washington, D.C. The selling off of Iraqi oil rights has produced a situation in which Iraq has also lost its future.

Many foreigners benefited financially from the invasion of Iraq. A few Iraqis, most of whom had not lived in the country for decades, did as well. However, Iraq benefited from nothing. There has not been one positive aspect of the invasion.

The Iraqi resistance is still up and running. According to experts, the groups have enough military hardware to conduct a formidable resistance for at least 40 years. This equipment came from the stockpiles of conventional weapons that were pre-positioned by the former Iraqi military. The Ba’ath Party executed this maneuver fight under the noses of the occupiers who were claiming victory. The mother of all battles is far from over

THE WORLD’S BIGGEST LIES AND THE DISASTROUS RESULTS

Very soon, we will be commemorating the sixth anniversary of the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. The reasons given by the U.S. for the invasion were fairy tales, but the results were anything but the usual happy ending of fictitious fables.

The lead-up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq was laden with lies, deceit, bribes, attempted bribes and so many ludicrous incidents that a fiction writer would be envious of the plot. Unfortunately, the scenario was real and deadly.

The U.S. government stated that Iraq was about to attack its neighbors. Then, the east coast of the U.S. would eventually be a target for Iraqi bombers. The ante was upped even more as Condoleezza Rice told the world:

Shortly after Rice made her allegations, numerous sources came forth to dispel her statement about aluminum tubes by pointing out that the aluminum tubes could only have been used for standard rockets and were in no way able to be used for nuclear weapons programs. Dick Cheney told the U.S. public that Iraq was thinking of bombing the east coast of the U.S. because the Iraqi government purchased road maps from Australia. Then, he said that Iraq had a fleet of drone airplanes to perform the task. When these allegations hit the world press, Iraq showed the world its dastardly drone aircraft: three or four drones made from balsa wood that had a range of about 20 miles. They were used for mapping purposes.

Despite these absurd allegations, most people did not see or hear about the quick rebuttals, so the original messages stuck in their minds. A major problem of these horrendous lies being thrust on the public was the so-called "opposition" party, the Democrats. Instead of jumping on the lies and holding the administration accountable, most remained mute during the buildup to the March invasion.

The U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell, was, to many U.S. citizens, held in high esteem. To them, he was the one "clear thinker" of the Bush administration. When he began to put forth incredible stories about Iraq, many who would have opposed an invasion, took his word as truth and eventually supported the war.

The world saw Powell at the UN making all sorts of allegations. One time, he questioned why an Iraqi building had a roof. Another time, he showed a satellite photo of an Iraqi convoy and asked what the Iraqis were moving. Shortly after each incident, reporters in Iraq went to the scenes of Powell’s queries. For the roof, the building manger said, "We have a roof to keep the sand and rain out of the building." The convoy was approached by the press and shown that it consisted of tomatoes. Few questioned how the U.S. Secretary of State could make such outrageous remarks about convoys and roofs and not be lambasted by the press.

On February 5, 2003, Powell made his most dramatic appeal for war. The world watched as he spoke at the UN and accused Iraq of many violations of agreements and then added that the Iraqis had a fleet of mobile biological weapons factories. He received accolades from the entire U.S. government and those all over the world who wanted Iraq to be invaded. There was one problem, however, he lied. Today, we all know about the deceit and Powell has called this performance "the lowest point in my life."

The White House considered Powell’s speech the crown jewel for making the case for war. On February 5, 2003, Powell’s statement appeared on the official White House website. It was called "Denial and Deception" in reference to the Iraqi government. We know now that the only denial and deception came from the U.S., yet the article is still listed. The original big lie is now part of "official" history in the U.S.

Three days before Powell laid out his agenda of lies at the UN, Saddam Hussein was interviewed by former British Labour MP Tony Benn, who asked him, "Mr. President, may I ask you some questions? The first is, does Iraq have any weapons of mass destruction?" Saddam Hussein replied:

Today’s revisionists blame Saddam Hussein for trying to hoodwink the world into thinking Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) after the country destroyed them. On February 2, 2003, he made it clear that Iraq was free of banned weapons. Many times prior to this statement, officials from the Iraqi government publicly made the same assertions. Because the British and U.S. governments lied about Iraq’s compliance to UN resolutions, they created the fabrication that the Iraqi president was not forthright in denying the existence of the weapons. Facts show that he and his spokespeople for more than a decade publicly declared Iraq free of WMD, yet history has again been rewritten by the British and the U.S. governments and press to reflect a lie that created the destruction of Iraq and the deaths of many Iraqis as well as U.S. and British soldiers. The victors again rewrote history. But, in this case the victory statements were premature. The real war began after the declarations of triumph by the "coalition of the willing."

Circumstances became even more bizarre. George Bush gave Saddam an ultimatum: leave Iraq within 48 hours or face a massive invasion. This was another lie. The invasion of Iraq began about a dozen hours before Bush’s "get out of Iraq" decree expired. The U.S. thought it had Saddam Hussein and his sons in its crosshairs and decided to bomb an area where U.S. intelligence said Saddam was holding a meeting. The bombs and missiles arrived and killed innocent people. Neither Saddam nor his sons were there.

On April 9, 2003, the world awoke to see a statue of Saddam Hussein being destroyed in Baghdad. Bush equated this to the toppling of the Berlin Wall. What the press did not do was to show the entire context of the statue’s demise.

There were few Iraqis at the scene. The U.S. rented an audience by bringing in a few outsiders, including Ahmed Chalabi and his crew. When pictures of the setting were scrutinized, it showed that most of the people were from the press corps (the U.S. military rounded them up from local hotels) and U.S. military.

How about the heart-rendering picture of a muscular Iraqi breaking the base of the statue with a sledgehammer? He was Iraqi weightlifting champion Kadhim al-Jubouri.

Four years after his image was seen worldwide, al-Jubouri had a change of heart. In the article, "The Regrets of the Man Who Brought Down Saddam," published on March 19, 2007, by The Guardian:

Another widely-published picture showed an Iraqi tying a chain around Saddam’s neck for the tanks below to pull down the statue. The person who affixed the chain was Ibrahim Khalil. On the fifth anniversary of the toppling of the statue, Khalil echoed similar statements to those of al-Jubouri. According to the article "Khalil Regrets Toppling of Statue of Saddam," published on April 9, 2008 by Agence France Presse:

On the fifth anniversary of the toppling of the statue in Firdoos Square, the area was almost deserted. There was a ban on vehicles imposed by the Iraqi and U.S. authorities to prevent resistance attacks. Every April 9, the square is off-limits to most Iraqis. The original plan was for George Bush to ride in a victory parade at Firdoos Square on the first anniversary of the destruction of the statue. He envisioned a couple of million Iraqis cheering him on while he waved from his limousine. Hundreds of millions (possibly billions) of people saw the original photos of Iraqis assisting the U.S. in tearing down the statue of Saddam Hussein, yet few read the follow-up articles of four and five years after the fact.

On July 3, 2003, George Bush was asked at a press conference about Iraqis resisting the U.S. occupation. He said, "There are some who feel like that conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is 'bring them on." A few months after that statement, a large-scale resistance was underway and U.S. casualties were mounting. On a video released by a resistance group, a spokesperson stated, "Mr. Bush said to ‘bring them on,’ and so we have in such a way that he could not imagine."

On July 22, 2003, the world was again shown the brutality and inhumanity of the occupation of Iraq. Saddam Hussein’s sons, Uday and Qusay, were killed in a six-hour raid on the house in which they were staying. The military actions consisted of hundreds of U.S. soldiers accompanied by helicopters. Thousands of rounds of ammunition as well as rockets and missiles struck the house. When the fireworks were over, the bullet-ridden bodies of the Hussein brothers were taken to a morgue and their gory pictures were shown on television to the world. What the U.S. did not allow to be shown was the body of Qusay’s 14-year-old son who was also chopped to pieces.

The U.S. is the same country that lambasted Somalis for showing pictures of citizens dragging a dead U.S. soldier through the streets of Mogadishu. The Somali actions were called despicable and horrendous. However, with the Hussein brothers, the words changed and the U.S. bragged to the world about their demise. The Somali demonstration was barbaric, yet the U.S. took pride in showing bodies that looked like they were minced in a meat grinder.

When the U.S. captured Saddam Hussein in December 2003, they heralded the event as the beginning of the demise of the Iraqi resistance. Just the opposite occurred. Instead of the Iraqi public considering Saddam a "spent force," many rallied in his support. Demonstrations broke out in praise of the Iraqi president. Even though the U.S. tried to denigrate Saddam and said that he was found in a "spider hole," the Iraqi public did not believe the scenario. In fact, Saddam Hussein was captured in a friend’s house.

The public display of a disheveled Saddam angered even some of the Iraqis who opposed him. Later, it was discovered that the photos were taken after the U.S. drugged Saddam. In this instance, the lack of knowledge of Arab culture again hurt the U.S. and made the public even more resistant to the occupation.

From 2004 on, the resistance grew. But, there were new entities that sprung up that made Iraq a violent nation. Those to whom the U.S. entrusted power, many Iran-supporting Shi’ites, escalated the violence by allowing death squads to take over parts of the country.

Prior to the March 2003 invasion, Baghdad was the crown jewel of the Arab world. It had endured occupations, wars, natural disasters and embargoes, yet it always remained the capital of the Arab world. The U.S. occupation changed all that.

From 2004 onward, the city of Baghdad became a venue of ethnic cleansing in which tens of thousands of citizens were killed or had to flee the city. Month-after-month saw the escalation of the destruction. U.S. actions, by supporting the death squads, made it possible to destroy the capital.

Today, Baghdad is in shambles. Six years after the invasion, electricity still remains a luxury that most citizens only have for a couple of hours a day. All the previous neighborhoods have changed. What has not been destroyed, looks entirely different. Many sections are defended by citizen militias. Plus, 28 areas of the city have been surrounded by 12-foot-high concrete walls. The inhabitants must pass checkpoints just to leave their area.

Baghdad is no longer Baghdad and there is little to show that the future will bring the city back to its former greatness.

The U.S. gambled that the Iraqis would welcome its soldiers as liberators. They lost the gamble. The big losers are the Iraqis who bore the brunt of lies and deceit as well as missiles, bombs, bullets, rockets, and chemical weapons.

More than six years after an invasion that the experts said would take only a few weeks, Iraq is in turmoil. Sectarian differences are the rule and there is no program to stop these actions that once were unheard of in Iraq. One thing is sure, the occupation did not go according to U.S. plans and the Iraqis have not been the only recipients of violence. An Iraqi resistance comprised of various factions is strong enough to keep the U.S. hands tied in Iraq for years. Only when the occupation forces totally leave Iraq will there be a solution to the internal affairs of the country.

One person’s assessment of what would occur after an invasion was very precise, however. Mohammed Sahaff, the Iraqi Information Minister, aka "Baghdad Bob," told the world:

Shortly after the statement, a reporter laughed at Sahaff and pointed to an area behind him and said, "Look. There are already Americans in Baghdad." Sahaff looked and saw a U.S. tank and said, "We’ve got them just where we want them." The audience of reporters laughed loudly and Sahaff left the podium for the last time.

The world scoffed at Sahaff’s statement. Internet sites sprung up making fun of the Minister. Coffee mugs and t-shirts were being sold that mocked his words. Today, there are few websites offering such items

SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF: AN INTERVIEW WITH GLEN FORD ABOUT BARACK OBAMA

Part One

ML: I’m going to start with a quote from your recent article: "Obama supporters make a great noise about imperialists in general while pledging undying solidarity in the struggle against such criminals, yet in their daily practice, labor mightily to absolve President Obama of culpability for his crimes." How did you come to that conclusion?GF: It was quite simple. I was attracted to the petition in calling for an end to sanctions against Zimbabwe, hands off Zimbabwe, no intervention in Zimbabwe. I was attracted to the letter itself. Then I looked at the signers and I recognized five people with whom I had been debating recently about Barack Obama and his policies. And there they were. These were Barack Obama supporters. I’m not just talking about people who just tended to give the new regime a break, but some of whom behaved as if Barack Obama was the second or third coming, or the very last coming. The final coming.

It was just amazing to see those names of those Obama worshippers juxtaposed with a letter that charged that those who have initiated sanctions against Zimbabwe are war criminals. The letter was fine, it was the signers who were all wrapped up in contradictions.

Zimbabwe is just one part of the vast contradiction. Within that letter, the signers talk about the people of Zimbabwe and the people of the United States facing a common enemy and they point the finger at the bankers, etc. Well, who is in bed with the bankers? This administration, that surrounds itself with bankers. Bankers are the crafters of this administration’s economic policy. This administration seems to exist for the purpose of resuscitating the investment banking class.

Yet these black Obama supporters have the nerve to say that they are in solidarity with everybody who is being oppressed by the banks. It makes no sense. It’s maddening, in fact.ML:How do they explain themselves when you confront them with this?

GF: They don’t. That is what is so frustrating. They will not explain themselves. At the last debate in December, in Harlem, some of them were saying, "Black people have spoken." And that was it. "Black people have spoken," that is Obama got 94% of the black vote, so therefore, "Shut up."

They refuse to do an analysis because they know. I’m sure they know that they show up badly in their own analysis. If they were honest, they would say that. But, if they were honest they wouldn’t have had those contradictory views in the first place.

Our great frustration was that they would not put forward a coherent argument. That’s one of the reasons, quite frankly, that we wrote that article … To call them out and we’re going to continue to call them out by name.

We are going to have those debates on both coasts. We are daring them to come. They can come or not come, but we are going to talk about these issues. They can punk out if they choose, or they can arrive and defend their positions.ML: How much of Obama was created by his followers and how much is actually a con by his changing views? For instance, all these progressives said, "Obama is great for this and that," and I said he wasn’t. I said, "Look at his voting record." I have not met a leftist or progressive, or whoever, who knew the answer to this question: " Did you know that Obama supports the death penalty?" The responses were, "Really?" That’s one of the key issues for the left. How can such a blatant thing like that pass them by? How much was it Obama’s supporters not wanting to know the truth and how much of it was Obama himself? Did he know this and did he use this denial astutely in his campaign?GF: He’s a very clever guy. I think we ought to really separate his black support from his progressive white support. People can get to the same place from very different roads. Obama knew very well that at the end of the process, that if he got far enough along in the process to become "viable," he knew very well that he was going to get the vast majority of the black vote. I’m sure he was clever enough to know that.

Certainly, Bruce Dixon, my managing editor, and I did back in 2003 when we first began to scrutinize Obama. It was clear that his senatorial campaign, as it was evolving, made the assumption that he would get the black vote, and, therefore, made no real outreach to it. It was the correct assumption. He was not required by anyone to make any substantive outreach to black folks. That is to address, up until this campaign, a perennial demand for a Marshall Plan for the inner cities. He has never made a real endorsement of affirmative action. Not a real endorsement. Always a hedged one.

The period in the presidential campaign leading up to South Carolina was quite ugly because it was not about substance. It was about labeling the Clinton campaign as racist. In fact, the Clinton campaign deserved that label on occasion. It didn’t have anything to do with urban issues or historical black issues. The fact that these two were essentially identical meant that we didn’t have a substantive discussion on anything in the latter part of the campaign.ML: Didn’t we hear Obama consistently mention God and how many times he goes to church during the campaign?GF: That’s right. That’s what happens when you get two Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) candidates running against each other. There’s no light between them. The only difference was race. ML: How about the supporters in the black community and in the leftist community who praised him immensely? Some are now saying, "We didn’t know he’d do this."GF: They made it all up. On the black side, one of the signers of that Zimbabwe letter, Dr. James McIntosh, told black audiences that Obama is "winking at them." And he actually believes this. He actually imagines as Obama makes these statements that are centrist, or right-wing, that Obama is simultaneously winking at black folks, meaning, "I have to do this, but my heart is with you. Don’t worry about it, it’s going to come out all right in the end."ML: I’ve heard the same excuse from many people: "He has to do this to get elected."GF: Now he is elected. Now why is he doing it? They’ll keep that up and then they’ll say, "Well, watch what he does in his second term when he doesn’t worry about getting re-elected. Then you’ll see the real Obama." I remember when there were certain elements saying that about Clarence Thomas. Despite all the evidence that he really was what he seemed to be, a reactionary tool of the worst elements of the right in this country, once he got that lifetime job that he could not be fired from, some black folks said, "We’ll see the real Clarence Thomas." Certainly if there were some black folks who could believe that with a specimen as vile as Clarence Thomas, there would be a much larger group who believe its own wishfulness with a specimen as attractive and clever as Barack Obama.ML: We heard the same about Bill Clinton: "Once he gets in office, he’s going to change." He did change. He went further to the right.GF: Obama goes steadily further to the right every day. Although he didn’t have to step too far. Bruce Dixon and I first zeroed in on Barack Obama in June 2003. Two things happened in the first week of June. I was going through my perusal of the membership list of the Democratic Leadership Council to check and see what new black recruits they’d gathered. Whose name do I see but Barack Obama’s? I called Bruce Dixon, who was in Atlanta. I was eager to give him this news and he said, "Wait a minute. Wait a minute. I’ve got something to tell you." He told me that he just went to Barack Obama’s campaign website and Obama had taken down his famous anti-war speech of October. Of course, we know what that meant. These things don’t just happen by accident. So, he backed off his anti-war speech by taking it off his website. Remember, by this time, Bush had announced "Mission Accomplished." The polls now switched because Americans love a war they think they’ve won. The war was now popular and he took the anti-war speech off his website and the DLC was bragging that he was a member.

Certainly, we had to challenge him on this. Bruce, having been to Obama’s wedding and worked with him on the 1992 massive voter registration campaign, had his number. We called him and we confronted him At first, he denied that taking the speech off the website meant a change of heart on his part. He just said it was routine. We knew that was a lie. Then he denied that he knew that the Democratic Leadership Council had put his name on their list and he said that he wasn’t a member. We urged him to have them take it off immediately. He actually hemmed and hawed. It took two or three weeks for him to finally request that they do take his name off. We went back and forth with him on the phone. He also sent us two or three letters, which we published. One can go to the archives of Black Commentator and read them.

After about three weeks of this, we gave Obama a test. We decided that he wasn’t being straight with us about his views on the war or his affiliation with the DLC, but we couldn’t prove it, so, why don’t we give him a test? We called it a bright line test. We presented him with three questions: If he is elected to the senate will he introduce legislation for universal healthcare. Two, to withdraw immediately from Iraq and three, to withdraw from NAFTA. If he answered these questions correctly, then he shouldn’t be in the DLC. If he answered them incorrectly, he ought to be in the DLC. That was our bright line test. He actually flunked the test with sleazy, slimy, dodgy, hemming and hawing answers, but, I gave him a passing grade because we didn’t want to seem to be the crabs in the barrel, holding the brother down. We rationalized it by saying, "Let’s see how the campaign progresses." He hadn’t even won the Democratic nomination for the senate. Actually, we punked out on him. That’s a great admission on our part. Not too long after, as he kept going further and further to the right, we finally did change our ways and behaved like real reporters and real citizens of the left and did an honest analysis of him. But most people on the left never did. ML: They didn’t know how he voted and what he stood for in the Senate.GF: They didn’t want to know.

He called the war in Iraq "dumb." He made it quite clear that he was not against war. Certainly, he does not admit that the U.S. is an imperialist power. He just thought it was a dumb war. Give him the war and he’ll do something smart with it. And that’s what he thinks he’s doing now.

ML: How do you see the militarizing of the U.S. culture? Today, kids dress in military camouflage. The San Diego Padres wear camouflage jerseys in some of their games. The playing of "Take Me Out to the Ball Game" during the seventh inning stretch at major league parks has been replaced with "God Bless America."

I think we can see the surge of militarism from the first Gulf War from that long buildup of bombing, which made war look sanitized, look like a video game, look like what kids like to do. Certainly, there was no blood and gore and people screaming with their intestines all over the ground. That blended in quite well with television culture. I think that was kind of a watershed moment. It needs to be said at this point in the conversation there were five military public high schools in Chicago, put together under Barack Obama’s now Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, when he was superintendent of schools in Chicago. Five schools that are directly run in conjunction with the U.S. military. These are public schools. The military is not just in the schools, it has essential control of five of them. This is Obama’s great friend and education secretary.

* * * * * * * * * *

If you want to read more of Glen Ford’s views, as well as those of an astute staff of writers who have researched matters thoroughly, go to www.blackagendareport.com. There is no fluff on the site, only well-presented articles written in an honest and thought-provoking manner.

HE’S AT IT AGAIN

In Italy, there is a 38-year-old woman who has not spoken a word in 17 years. She is brain-dead and has no chance of recovery. Her father has fought for 10 years to have machines shut off that keep her alive in a coma.

According to an article by Agence Press France of February 4, 2009:

Now, the Vatican has become involved. They oppose the taking away of the medical instruments that have kept Ms. Englaro alive for 17 years. Pope Benedict XVI calls the impending shutdown of the life support systems "an assassination." He then called euthanasia a "false answer to suffering."

The current pope has mentioned over-and-over how important life is and that humans should not use birth control. He has failed to take into account the multitude of African youngsters who have died because of hunger or lack of medical treatment who were born because their mothers had no access to birth control. There is a full-court press in Africa by the Catholic Church to keep birth control knowledge as well as items away from the Africans: all in the name of "pro-life." I would not be so harsh in my assessment of the anti-birth control efforts if the Vatican paid for and ensured the health of African children who were conceived because their mothers were not allowed to practice birth control. But, that will never happen. This scenario, like many others perpetrated by the human race, is begun by a group of people who, once the adverse effects come forth, are far away from the scene.

Each year, thousands of individuals die in The Netherlands under the country’s euthanasia program. One can not just go see a doctor and ask for the termination of his/her life. There is much scrutiny for each patient. In all cases, the underlying factor is that the patient’s suffering is unbearable and there is no prospect of improvement.

This entire event is laden with hypocrisy. Over the past few years, the pope has denigrated Muslims, Native Americans of South America, atheists, and even Christians who are not of the Catholic faith. Many of his words have been filled with hatred.

Let’s talk about the term "pro-life." Pope Benedict XVI has uttered a few words about Iraq. Most are his condemnations of the deaths of Muslims conducting a holy pilgrimage or the killing of Iraqi Christians. Hardly any words have been uttered about Iraqi death squads that target everyone, not just religious pilgrims.

He seems to be obsessed with converting Muslims to Christianity. On March 28, 2008, according to an Associated Press article titled, "Pope Calls for Peace in Tibet, Iraq, Holy Land," with a sub-headline "Benedict XVI Praises Conversions to Christianity in Rainy Easter Address:"

Where was the pope’s recent outcry over the assassinations of more than 1,300 Palestinians? We never saw him in front of the TV cameras denouncing Israel’s slaughter. However, at the time, there was a rift between the Vatican and Israel. Unfortunately, it had nothing to do with the Israeli destruction of the people and the infrastructure of Gaza. According to the Times Online of January 8, 2009:

Pathetic, indeed. While Israel was thrashing Gaza, the Vatican was more concerned with travel restrictions on Catholic officials and the removal of taxes on their property. Most Gazans had no property left after the invasion, yet the Vatican cried about its real estate being taxed.

I began this article with the sad case of a man who loved his daughter and tried for more than a decade to put her out of her misery. The pope put his unasked-for two cents into the issue and is attempting to further his own agenda at the price of making a family suffer further. And he has the nerve to speak of "family values."

CLINTON BLEW IT

The title of this column is a perfect example of both the beauty and the curse of the English language: many times, a word construes more than one meaning.

Take the title. It could mean that Clinton blew on his saxophone. Or, change the name Clinton to Monika and put the former president’s name at the end of the statement, and we have "Monika blew Bill." Again, a correct statement.

But, today’s column has nothing to do with sex or music. It is about blown (there it is, another variant of that word again) chances for settling the Iraq issue during his second term.

Today, all I hear from the Democrats (officials and the general public) is how George Bush is a murderous thug who invaded Iraq under dubious circumstances. The fairy tale is that the honorable Democrats would have handled the situation much differently.

Hogwash!

During her tenure as Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright stated time and time again that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD). She was a broken record. However, in 2005, in Sweden, she told a group that if Al Gore was elected president in 2000, he would not have gone to war because "we knew Saddam did not have these weapons." One of those statements must be a lie.

Now, let’s look at how many Iraqis have been killed by the U.S. because of military action and the embargo that was in place from 1990 to 2003. Almost three million.

Let’s look at how many were killed under three administrations, two Republican and one Democrat. Hmmm. It appears that many more died from January 1993 to January 2001. But, this was a Democratic administration. In other words, the Democrats have as much, if not more, blood on their hands than the Republicans in the 1990-2003 period of the U.S.-Iraq War.

By the way, the war is still going on. There is no official document calling for the end of the war, making this conflict a 18-year battle, and still going.

Let’s get back to Clinton. History now shows us that Iraq was telling the truth from 1992 on when it said, "We don’t have any more illegal weapons." Even the term "illegal" is wrong, but Iraq swallowed its pride and consented to the terms of a 1991 agreement. These same weapons are not deemed illegal in the countries that possess them (most countries in the world), yet Iraq had to sign away certain aspects of defending itself.

Let’s go to 1997. By now, the embargo had killed more than one million people under the watch of Bill Clinton. But, there were certain quarters that were trying to get the embargo ended.

One person who was at the forefront of ending the embargo and welcoming Iraq back into civilization was Jack Kemp. That’s right, the conservative former congressman who was Bob Dole’s choice for vice president in 1996.

Although he espoused conservative issues, Kemp is basically a good human being. He is not a racist and neither is he xenophobic. He is fair. An aspect of his vice-presidential run in 1996 is rarely brought up: that of him knowingly throwing away any chances of ever being president by being on the same ticket as Dole, a sacrificial lamb to the Republican Party because they knew they would be trounced. Kemp put the good of the party above his own personal future.

In 1997, Kemp was aghast to find out that U.S. personnel at the U.N. were ordered never to utter one word to an Iraqi on the diplomatic staff. If they saw an Iraqi, they were to ignore him. He questioned Clinton on this because he thought the only way to settle the Iraq-U.S. dispute was through diplomacy. But, no one could practice diplomacy if one side was considered non-existent.

Kemp put forth an initiative through is organization, Empower America, to seriously discuss an end to the embargo. He advocated a six-month period of "snap inspections" in which U.N. inspectors would hold unannounced sessions anywhere in the country.

By 1998, the Kemp plan was growing. Former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn and former U.S. President Jimmy Carter joined Kemp in making a plan to end this period of history.

At the time, the late Nizar Hamdoon was the Iraq’s Ambassador to the U.N. He had the assurances from his government that the Kemp plan was acceptable and desired. But, the administration turned a blind eye to any talks with Iraq.

To this day, I still don’t know the reason why Clinton did not take the opportunity offered in 1998. He and his cohorts never made public Kemp’s offer. Instead, they upped the ante. Bill Richardson, then the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. rejected any deal with Baghdad. But, the U.S. signed a piece of paper in 1991 stating the sanctions would be lifted once the weapons were destroyed. Richardson said that the embargo would remain as long as Saddam was in power. The 1991 agreement, like most U.S. treaties, was not worth the paper it was singed on. Just ask the U.S. Native American community; what’s left of it.

During what could have been a dynamic time for a bold move to ensure peace and the cessation of genocide against Iraqis, the Clinton administration was mute. Then, in October and November of 1998, Clinton began to make allegations against Iraq and the public thought war was just around the corner. In December, the U.N. pulled its inspection team from Iraq and the U.S. launched Operation Desert Fox, a military campaign that further eroded Iraq’s infrastructure. Hundreds of buildings were bombed and after the air show stopped, Clinton said the U.S. destroyed much of Baghdad’s chemical weapons stockpile.
What stockpile? As we now know, in 1991 the Iraqis destroyed it themselves, so all the destruction of the 1998 bombing and missile attacks destroyed anything but chemical weapons.
Then, in the aftermath, the myth of "Saddam kicked out the inspectors" began to take hold. The inspectors were ordered to leave by the U.N. and the U.S.: they were not kicked out by the Iraqi government.

Backdoor negotiations made Iraq think the light at the end of the tunnel was now visible. But, it received a whack instead. It is no wonder the Iraqis would not trust any words uttered by the U.S.

The tragedy of this is that the U.S. public still believes the horse dung we have been fed by successive administrations.

It’s too bad Monika wasn’t blowing Bill while he was blowing a chance at becoming a person of integrity and vision. It just may have kept his mind off bombing Iraq.

Today, there is a new face in Washington and many people are heralding Barack Obama as "another Clinton," in reference to the abominable Bush years. If this is a correct analogy, Iraq may not exist at the end of his term.

AN ALTERNATIVE LOOK AT GOD

Over the years, I have received hundreds, maybe thousands, of letters requesting information. The subjects varied. Many came from people who were interested in sports when I was a sports administrator. As the editor of a weekly newspaper, I opened many an envelope containing letters. For the past 13 years, I have been president of the Atheist Coalition of San Diego, a post that carries the responsibility of answering numerous queries.

The following letter was addressed to the Atheist Coalition of San Diego. I must admit, that concerning the writer’s position in society and the eloquence of his request, this is probably the most creative letter I have ever received. I am sharing it with you to show that there are still some people who can write in an imaginative manner; a trait that has almost disappeared in the U.S. I did not include the name of the writer because of the social standing of the author.

* * * * *

Dear Sir/Madam,

Recently, I read a magazine pertinent to non-believers, and I was astounded at my own reaction to the well-reasoned concepts depicted in those eloquently written literary works.

For unfolding reasons, I have always had a personal problem with the "GOD" concept since early childhood; I was raised within a devout Catholic environment. Subsequently, the only aspect of "GOD" that I found appealing was U.S. currency bearing the logo "IN GOD WE TRUST." Ironically, I am now serving a prison sentence for the offense of bank robbery.

To my dismay, the offense didn’t monetarily yield as planned, and I am left without any funds to purchase a few much aspired literary works pertaining to non-believers.

Accordingly, if at all possible, please send me a book or two that may be new, used, or otherwise not suitable for sale, i.e., minimally damaged, out-of-date, etc. The prison’s policy would not foreclose my receipt of a book so long as the mailed package bears your organization’s name and return address.

Your time and assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated. Thank you kindly.

Sincerely

(Name withheld)

TROUBLE AHEAD

For the past couple of weeks, the eyes of the world have been riveted on the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians. Most Western governments turned their heads on the issue and pretended it wasn’t there. However, massive demonstrations worldwide proved that the people are now aware of Israel’s untouchable status in the eyes of the West.

Because of the publicity about Israel, few people realized that one name came up from two African leaders last week: Susan Rice, Obama’s choice for U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe mentioned her in unflattering terms. Omar Bashir, president of Sudan, said that there could have been no worse a pick for the position. Both should know. From 1997 to 2001, Rice served as Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs. During her tenure, she pulled many behind-the-scenes shenanigans in trying the ostracize Mugabe and Bashir from the international community. They were not her only targets. For the most part, she opposed true revolutionary movements and supported Western-backed actions to create havoc in Africa.

Rice is a person in the same mold as Paul Bremer and April Glaspie in her working for years in the background for the U.S. government. Few people heard of them until they were given their center-stage appointments. Her views are similar to those of Madeleine Albright, with whom she was close during the Clinton years. They both support genocide against Arabs or Africans and are proud of their actions. Don’t forget, Albright is the same person who told a worldwide audience that killing a million and a half Iraqi children through the embargo was "worth it" for U.S. security.

Rice also is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the most powerful group in the world in determining who gets destroyed and who doesn't in the international arena. Colin Powell is also a CFR member. Rice’s policies seem to be a combination of those of Albright and Powell.

On October 4, 2006, Rice was a guest on National Public Radio (NPR). She was in a hawkish mood about Sudan. According to NPR:

Last week’s statement by Bashir went, for the most part, unheard. In addition to calling Rice the worst choice for the UN post, he maintains that the U.S. is already planning military action against his country. His assessment may be accurate because some times in the past, before the U.S. has used military action, there was a lull in public demonizing of the country. Then, the fireworks began. We may soon see President Obama addressing the public and stating that a U.S. bombing campaign has begun in Sudan to help stop terrorism and he will end the speech with, "God bless America." The same scenario has been played over and over by George Bush I, Bill Clinton and George Bush II. There does not need to be a new script written because the old one still works with the gullible U.S. public.

A few months ago, I wrote a column called "Re-Conquering Africa," in which I mentioned that Africa is ripe for a program to strip it of oil and uranium. Obama is the perfect front-man for such an undertaking. If a white U.S. president would implement it, there would be some outcry from the left that it was a racist move. Enter Obama. He will not be criticized about racism because he is black. Now, he will have Rice, a black woman. right beside him.

In the past few years, many Western Christian missionaries have flooded Africa. A substantial number are spies with whom the missionaries collaborate. They have similar goals: the spies want to take over the raw materials of Africa and the missionaries want to take over the spiritual beliefs of Africans. Plus, billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars are now being used by missionary groups in Africa to assist in the transformation of the continent. (See "Destroying Christianity to Save It In Iraq" in my archive section.)

The media are not putting Sudan in the forefront yet. Come January 20, 2009, a black president will be inaugurated in Washington D.C. Many herald Obama's victory as the beginning of a "new Camelot." Africans, however, will not have the same opinion once the Obama-Rice tandem take on Sudan and Zimbabwe, and then expand their operation on the continent. To them, the U.S. foreign policy will represent a resurrection of the genocide the West thrust on Africa in the 19^th and 20^th centuries.

DESTROYING CHRISTIANITY TO SAVE IT IN IRAQ

About a year after the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, I was having a conversation with a Chaldean (Iraqi Christian) in San Diego. By then, violence and murder had become a part of the fabric of Iraq.

I asked the Chaldean what he thought of the state of affairs and was surprised when he told me that he really didn’t care. When I asked about his indifference, he said, "Fuck ‘em. They’re all Muslims."

I knew that I was not dealing with someone who had an astute knowledge of politics, but I tried to bring to him some sense of reality. I asked him, "Don’t you see that it soon will be the Christians who will be murdered or forced to flee Iraq?" He said that would never happen.

Soon, churches were blown up. Then, Christians in Iraq were being targeted and many were killed, with tens of thousands fleeing either the country or their area of Iraq.

The Chaldean community of San Diego, many of whom welcomed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, now began to question the violence. Once their co-religionists became targets, their thought processes changed. But, they still did not see that the bloodshed in Iraq had its roots in the invasion. No one was exempt from the violence that the overthrow of the legitimate government of Iraq created.

Today, we all know the plight of Iraqi Christians. Mass movements of Christians are still underway. It is ironic to see that one of the first groups of Christians in the world, who maintained a presence for almost 2,000 years, may disappear from Iraq. There are many more Iraqi Christians living outside Iraq than inside.

The obvious culprits of the devastating of Iraqi Christianity are evident: Shia death squads, Iraqi stooge government employees, and the chaos created and cheered on by the U.S. However, there is a major player involved in this scenario that is rarely acknowledged: U.S. Christian groups.

Many U.S. Christians have visited Iraq since 2003 and have begun programs to not only spread "the word" of Jesus in Iraq, but to destroy the long tradition of Christianity in Iraq. In other words, they are trying to destroy Christianity in Iraq to save it.

Once the Bibles and missionaries began to invade Iraq, the Iraqi Christians called "foul." In May 2005, the head of Iraq’s largest Christian community, Patriarch Emmanuel Delly, scathingly attacked the evangelical U.S. Christians who had taken their crusade to Iraq.

On May 19, 2005, Delly told Al-Jazeera News that Iraq did not need Christian missionaries because its churches dated back long before Protestantism. He objected to the aspect of trying to convert Muslims and said, "You can’t even talk about that here."

According to Delly: the evangelists attract poor youths with displays of money and then "take them out in cars to have fun. Then, they take photos and send them here, to Germany, to the U.S., and say ‘Look how many Muslims have become Christian.’"

There are many U.S. groups who have gone to Iraq with carton-loads of Bibles, yet they do not even mention Iraqi Christians. They point out that they must save the Iraqi Muslims from themselves by converting them to Jesus. In the meantime, the Iraqi Christian community is adversely affected by the actions of the U.S. zealots. They admittedly go to Iraq, quickly drop off their Bibles and other propaganda, and leave. All the time, Iraqi Christians are targeted for the activities of the outsiders.

Much of the demise of Iraqi Christians has been financed by U.S. taxpayers without them even knowing. In 1991, George Bush proclaimed that he wanted to create a "faith-based" program that would allow religious institutions to receive cash from the U.S. government for supplying social services. Many members of the U.S. Congress stated their disapproval and it was evident that such a program would not pass in Congress. So, Bush created the "Faith-Based Initiative" by presidential decree.

Since its inception, the initiative has been a dismal failure, costing the U.S. public about $10 billion. The recipients of the money can openly discriminate in hiring and are not required to adhere to safety regulations and staffing rules that are necessary for non-faith-based companies or individuals. Under the Faith-Based Initiative, some groups have started drug rehabilitation programs without having one qualified person on the staff. This has applied also to many other areas of social services. Some programs have opened in buildings in which safety inspectors reported water in electrical outlets and cracks in the walls and ceilings. A regular business would be shut down for safety violations and hazards, yet the faith-based programs are exempt from disciplinary actions.

Finding out where the monies have been distributed is a difficult task because of the accounting methods and the fact that the U.S. government wants to keep some activities out of pubic view. But, if one looks hard enough, there is information that shows that the Faith-Based Initiative has given money to groups to pursue their evangelical quests overseas. According to the article "Court Bars Suit on Faith-Based Plan," written by Michael Kranish on June 26, 2007, for the Boston Globe:

In the three years following the Globe’s findings, much more money has been allocated to faith-based groups. Without having exact figures to work with, it is logical to assume from the figures from 2001 to 2005 that several billions of dollars have made their way into Christian missionary work overseas, including Iraq.

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) plays a crucial role in helping Christian groups acquire government money to use in overseas programs. The group has a section that deals exclusively with marrying religious groups with taxpayer money. USAID gives detailed information to the groups on how to obtain the finances, and it is not shy in promoting the U.S. evangelical movement in foreign countries.

You may say, "Well, Lagauche is just a disgruntled atheist who opposes good work done by religious groups." Quite the contrary.

Let’s look at USAID. It is a government agency laden with operatives who, in addition to the giving out of a few bags of rice to African nations, has a goal of promoting U.S. foreign policy at all costs, even outright lying.

On November 20, 2003, Tony Blair announced to the world that 400,000 mass graves had been discovered in Iraq since the occupation began. This proclamation astounded the world. USAID quickly came out with a publication titled Iraq’s Legacy of Terror, Mass Graves. In it was the statement:

Saddam Hussein was compared to the much overused Jewish holocaust. He was Pol Pot and Hitler in one person.

On July 18, 2004, Tony Blair again spoke to the press about Iraqi mass graves. He said that his previous quote on bodies was not accurate. The new figure was 5,000 (most of whom were killed in the Kurdish civil war of the 1990s and by U.S. bombs in 1991). This incredible statement did not make its way into the U.S. media. Even the so-called "left" and anti-war camps paid little or no attention to it, despite it being one of the most important statements ever made during the entire demonizing of Iraq from 1990 until Blair came clean.

How did USAID treat the revised figures? They ignored them. If you go to the USAID website today, the 400,000 figure is still mentioned and not one word has changed from the original publication.

In July 2002, I interviewed George Galloway, the British politician who tried to galvanize world opinion against an attack on Iraq. He spoke of the great support he received in Britain from various Christian churches. I told him that just the opposite was occurring in the U.S. At that time, many preachers used their pulpits as a pro-war weapon. The vast majority of the Christian U.S. public called for an invasion of Iraq. Once the resistance began in Iraq, many of these same people began to oppose the war, but it was too late. Christian groups in England were instrumental in trying to stop a war, while many Christian organizations in the U.S. were pro-war government dupes.

I have confronted many Christians about their reasons for wanting war and, to this day, some still maintain that there were massive amounts of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that Saddam was the mastermind of the 9-11 attacks. I am curious why they supported, and some still support, the March 2003 invasion. After all, I’ve been told that Christianity is a religion of peace and brotherhood.

Numerous people have told me that they support life and are against abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Even though I disagree with their views, I can respect them if they are consistent. I have asked all the same question, but have yet to receive an answer: "If you are against killing, how can you justify supporting the killing of more than three million Iraqis?" Silence always follows my question. I also state that those who opt for euthanasia chose to do so. The millions of Iraqis killed by U.S. bombs had no say in the matter.

Let there be no ambiguity. Some U.S. Christian organizations, for evangelical reasons, are destroying Iraqi Christianity, many times paid for by U.S. taxpayer money from public funding. They care not about Iraqi Christians and bypass them while fomenting turmoil for the diminishing Iraqi Christian community.

During one of my conversations with a Christian acquaintance, he became upset because of my statement that U.S. Christians were instrumental in the destruction of Iraq. He said, "The pope opposed the war." I then asked him, "Did you?" He meekly answered, "Well, no." Enough said.

Saddam Hussein’s Greatest Legacy: December 2003 to December 2006

Part Three

After Saddam’s execution, the press had a field day in analyzing and editorializing the incident as well as Saddam himself. Most were writing well out of their league and their ignorance of history showed. Because most U.S. readers do not know the history of Iraq, the scribes’ words were taken as true.

The theme of many articles was that justice was not achieved because Saddam was hanged for a lesser crime than the major ones assessed against him. The "progressive" writers wanted to see him tried for gassing incidents so they could tie together U.S. involvement with the "misdeeds" of Saddam Hussein. Article-after-article mentioned Rumsfeld’s visit to Iraq in the 1980s and said the U.S. gave Iraq the technology for Iraq’s WMD programs during the Iran-Iraq War, however, not one questioned the reason for the war. They all blamed it on Saddam and wrote as if Iran was a benign and aggrieved country. Also, not one writer mentioned that Saddam was quickly hanged before the gassing incidents could come to court. Many people accuse Iran, not Iraq of gassing the Kurds at Halabjah. If Saddam was dead, these items could not be addressed, so the truth behind the myth of "gassing his own people" went to the grave with Saddam. Further, not one mentioned that Saddam’s Iraqi attorney, Khalil al-Dulaimi, the only defense lawyer able to speak in the courtroom, had been approached twice in the previous year by Iranian agents who tried to persuade him not to mention Halabjah at the trial. On his first encounter, in Jordan, he was offered $10 million to keep the subject off the agenda. Later, in Paris, the Iranians upped the ante by offering him $100 million. The only way to keep the subject away from public scrutiny was to kill Saddam on bogus charges. Shortly after he died, the court dropped the genocide charges against Saddam Hussein.

But, in most of the reporting, a visible part of history was missing. At the same time Saddam Hussein and Rumsfeld met, Iran was killing Iraqi soldiers and civilians with missiles supplied by the U.S. The U.S. had already made the deal with Iran to sell them missiles and other military material, with Israel getting the obligatory 10% for being the middleman. Iraq and Iran were both supplied by the U.S.

After Saddam’s execution, some writers mocked him and again, re-wrote history. In "So Long to ‘Our Tyrant,’" Andrew Cockburn stated in Common Dreams on December 30, 2006:

Cockburn, of all people, should know that after Desert Storm, many plots to get rid of Saddam emerged.. For instance, even Scott Ritter, once head of the U.N. inspection team, stated that the goal of the U.S. personnel on the inspection contingent was to overthrow Saddam. He admits that he was part of the scheme.

John Simpson of the Sunday Times relayed more historical revision in his piece "Tyrant Met His End with Fortitude:"

The glaring mis-representation in this piece is the depiction that his ministers, the officers in his army and police force consisted mostly of Sunnis. In fact, 60% of the Republican Guard officers were Shi’ite. As were two-thirds of the Iraqi ambassadors assigned to the U.N. during Saddam’s tenure. Iraq’s mouthpiece to the world in March and April 2003, Mohamed Sahaff (the Iraq Information Minister) was Shi’ite. In the infamous deck of 55 playing cards created by the U.S., 35 individuals were Shi’ite. Plus, Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi foreign minister, was a Christian. Justice could have been better portrayed if Simpson took a few minutes to research facts before he made such erroneous allegations.

In the article, "Rule of Noose," in The Nation of December 31, 2006, Bruce Shapiro wrote:

Shapiro packed much rancor into such a short span of words. "Depraved and sadistic" stick out. I doubt that Shapiro has an education and background in psychology, but he tries to dissect Saddam Hussein’s brain. On December 30, 2006, the only "depraved and sadistic" Iraqis we saw were the ones who taunted Saddam and those who pulled the lever for his hanging.

On the other hand, some articles contained realistic information. According to Robert Dreyfuss, in his article, "The Consequences of Killing Saddam," in The Nation, December 31, 2006:

Michael Boldin spoke of the lies and deceit of the U.S. administration in his piece "Saddam Was Right and Bush Was Wrong," published online by www.populistamerica.com on December 30, 2006:

Boldin is one of the few writers who went right to the core of the problem of the demonizing of Saddam Hussein. If those who accused Saddam of myriad atrocities had been exposed as liars about virtually every aspect on Iraq, how could they transform themselves into purveyors of truth in describing Saddam Hussein and his regime?

Al-Quds of al-Arabi assessed the situation in a logical manner. Its editor, Abdel Bari Atwan, told Aljazeera News:

The pundits had a great time writing about Saddam Hussein’s execution. Many work for huge publications with limitless resources for research, yet they chose to re-hash old discredited information and add a few new untruths as well.

These represent only a few statements made in the Western press. But, in newspapers from Brazil to Russia, from India to Indonesia, from Pakistan to Venezuela, and many other nations, the media were much kinder to Saddam Hussein and the barbaric end he experienced.

Many Western observers are not aware that Saddam Hussein was well-regarded in much of the world. Brazilians remembered that thousands of their countrymen were recruited by Saddam to build the advanced highway and bridge systems that once crisscrossed Iraq. Egyptians did not forget that more than two million of their countrymen owned and worked land in Iraq prior to January 1991. Indians did not forget the reciprocal dealings with Iraq and how the Ba’athists gave support to Indian causes. The Lebanese remembered the dozens of Iraqi trucks that showed up daily at the Lebanese border during that country’s civil war. They were laden with food and clothing for any Lebanese person in need. The convoys’ recipients included all Lebanese, not a certain faction of those battling in the civil war. Most Palestinians display a picture of Saddam Hussein on their walls. Over the years, many nations have temporarily supported the Palestinian cause, only to withdraw aid once threatened by the U.S. Saddam Hussein, even during the embargo years, supported the Palestinians with no exception, while other Arab regimes did not want to get involved because they did not want to upset their puppeteers in Washington and Tel Aviv.

It didn’t take long for the world to see how quickly the bogus court that tried Saddam became unraveled. On March 9, 2007, the headlines for Al-Jazeera News read, "Saddam Judge Flees Iraq." Raouf Abdel-Rahman was the judge who sentenced Saddam Hussein, Barzan al-Tikriti (Iraq’s former intelligence minister) and Awad Hamed (former head of Iraq’s Revolutionary Court) to death. All were hanged.

Abdel-Rahman was the second judge on the trial in which the defendants were accused of crimes against humanity for the execution of 148 people from the city of Dujail in 1985. The first judge, Rizgar Amin, resigned. He accused the U.S.-allied Iraqi officials of scripting the trial for him. When Abdel-Rahman came on board, the so-called trial turned into a fiasco. He constantly kicked the defendants and their lawyers out of the court room. He made public statements before the end of the trial in which he stated that Saddam was guilty. When a defense witness came forth with a video tape showing how the head prosecutor, Jaafar al-Musawi and a prosecution witness, Ali al-Haidari had lied, Abdel-Rahman confiscated the video tape and had the witness, along with three other defense witnesses, arrested and tortured.

When the appeals court turned down the request of Saddam’s defense team about the death verdict, Abdel-Rahman had to set an execution date within 30 days of the appeal verdict. Saddam was hanged within four days, on the date of the beginning of a Moslem holiday.

For a few months, Abdel-Rahman relished in his image as a no-nonsense, tough judge. The truth differs. He stood against everything a judge is supposed to represent: to find the truth. He lied and he was a fraud. He was brave while he was protected by the U.S. Army in the Green Zone, but once the hangings were conducted, it appears that Abdel-Rahman must have lost some of his protection. He fled to Great Britain.

There is one aspect of this mockery that is confusing. Abdel-Rahman asked for "political asylum" in Great Britain. Political asylum is usually requested by citizens of countries in which they are not allowed political, social or religious rights that other citizens enjoy. Abdel-Rahman was a product of the quisling Iraqi government. He was right in the middle of all the shenanigans and violence the pretenders thrust on Iraq. Why did he ask for "political asylum" when he was a mainstream player in the sordid politics of Iraq?

It is probable that there were many Iraqis who were offended by Saddam Hussein’s show trial and hanging and some were probably picking up the stench of Abdel-Rahman’s scent. Even the U.S. and the Iraqi stooges would have been unable to give him enough security to ensure that he would be alive at retirement age.

Abdel-Rahman may have been the temporary victor because of his actions in an unfair Iraqi courthouse that led to the hanging of Saddam Hussein. But, in death, Saddam Hussein won the battle against him as Abdel-Rahman made a secret and cowardly exit from Iraq.

At the time of the writing of this book, a very ill Tariq Aziz is being tried on false charges. Out of nowhere, Abdel-Rahman reappeared in Baghdad. It appears that no one wanted to be the judge who orders the hanging of Aziz, so the quisling Iraqi government made a deal with the person who handed down Saddam Hussein’s death sentence. It will be interesting to see Abdel-Rahman’s actions after the trial. He may well return to England for his extended vacation.

Saddam Hussein knew how his life would end, but he was well aware that his legacy would be part of the equation that will resurrect Iraq. He never sold out, not even at the end when he was offered chances to be freed from prison. He knew that if he sold out, he would have sold out Iraq.

Long after his execution, Saddam Hussein still gained ludicrous press coverage. On the first anniversary of the hanging, two British newspapers ran stories about the one-year anniversary.

On December 31, 2007, the British daily newspaper, The Telegraph, ran an article called "Few Gather to Remember at Saddam’s Tomb." It was written by Akeel Hussein and Colin Freeman. Here are a few statements:

This pieces is a horrible example of journalism, especially coming from such an established newspaper as The Telegraph. The tone of mockery is normally never seen in a feature article. Plus, the inaccuracies are glaring. Even from Saddam’s naysayers I have never seen the last words attributed to him that this stooge tag-team wrote. However, the facts are true: only a few dozen people showed up at Saddam’s grave.

Now, let’s go a few miles across London and see how The Times handled the same story. Deborah Haynes and Ali Hamdani collaborated on the article "Thousands Prevented from Visiting Saddam Tomb on Anniversary of Execution" that was published on December 30, 2007.

Let’s take a look at a sampling of this article:

Two stories used basic facts (and some fiction on the part of The Telegraph) in depicting the first anniversary of Saddam Hussein’s murder. However, only one stated why there were so few people at Saddam’s grave.

If Saddam Hussein is a spent force in Iraq, why does the U.S. and its quisling allies keep people from visiting his grave? They are cowards with absolutely no integrity and can only function surrounded by tanks and enough military hardware to incinerate the entire country of Iraq. So much for "bringing democracy to Iraq."

Saddam Hussein’s Greatest Legacy: December 2003 to December 2006

Part Two

When the verdict of death for Saddam was announced on November 5, 2006, many groups, individuals and governments were outraged. They tried to get the U.N. to intervene, but to no avail.

Many quotes came forth from foe and friend of Saddam. The most preposterous came from Nouri al-Maliki, the so-called Iraqi prime minister:

That statement was outrageous, but many people will believe it. For the preceding year, hundreds, if not thousands, of professors, scientists and doctors were killed in Iraq by agents of the Maliki government. During Saddam’s time, those professionals flourished and were the pride of Iraq. Maliki added them to the long list of fictitious victims of Saddam Hussein’s rule.

The announcement of the verdict backfired. The U.S. thought it would further erode Saddam’s importance to the Iraqi public, but just the opposite occurred. The website www.al-moharer.net posted this message shortly after the announcement:

The U.S. media failed to show photos of these incidents, yet the international press displayed many. Within a few more hours, the demonstrations escalated and U.S. vehicles were targeted by the crowds.

The only hope that Saddam Hussein had to stop his date with the gallows was an appeal from his defense team to an appeals court. The defense had a time limit in which to file the appeal, yet the court that tried Saddam did not give his defense the necessary information. Weeks went by without the court even giving the defense team a summary of the charges. When Saddam’s team received the necessary information, it only had a few days to file an appeal. The defenders had to create an appeal in a few days that normally would take a month or two to construct. Every obstacle was put in place to keep justice from seeing even a ray of daylight.

The appeals court took two days to read 1,500 pages of documents presented by the defense and then issued a denial for the appeal on December 26, 2006.. No court in the world can decipher this number of pages in such a short time.

Despite there being no time limit for the appeals court to reach a decision, it made one in two days. The next step was to affix a date for the execution. It had to be within 30 days of the announcement of December 26^th.

No one was surprised by the verdict against Saddam Hussein because of the knowledge this was a foregone conclusion. However, the appeals court outdid itself by ruling on the Iraqi vice president, Taha Yasin Ramadan. He was sentenced to life in prison by the court that convicted Saddam, but the appeals court took it upon itself to change the sentence to death, even though the case was not on the docket.

From the first day Saddam Hussein stepped foot in court until the day he was hanged, the entire system was stacked against him. Many of the laws the court made for itself were illegal in the eyes of international law and the court even breached some of its own illegal laws. Dr. Curtis Doebbler, a noted international human rights attorney, was on Saddam’s legal team from the start. Shortly after the announcement of the appeals court, he stated:

After the appeals verdict, almost everybody in the U.S. was in the lynching mood. Pundits were frothing at the mouth when they discussed the upcoming execution. There was a collective air of jubilation and even anti-war activists cheered on the impending hanging. Many politicians of the Democratic party who jumped on the anti-war and anti-Bush wagon said that Saddam "deserved it." Not one discussed the legality or fairness of his trial, Leftist journalists were trying to outdo each other in demeaning Saddam. Not only were they reporting the standard fare of Saddam Hussein myths, they made up new fables of atrocities.

Many people have stated that George Bush lied about everything to do with Iraq: weapons of mass destruction; the Bin-Laden/Saddam Hussein link; Iraqi involvement with 9-11; fictitious biological weapons trailers; the Iraqi imprisonment of a U.S. pilot since 1991, etc. Yet, the same people who question Bush’s lies about Iraq broadcast the myths about Saddam Hussein and his regime. If Bush had lied about everything else, why should one believe his statements about the Ba’ath Party and Iraq’s president? Logic would argue that he lied about Saddam as well.

The scenario did not make sense. The people who consistently made the most absurd and untrue statements about Iraq (Bush, Cheney, Rice, Bremer, Powell, Rumsfeld, et al) and who stole tens of billions of dollars that belonged to the country of Iraq, proudly spoke of creating a new Middle East based on U.S. aggression or were conducting book-signing tours for their memoirs. The results of their lies led to the killing of more than a million Iraqis; a cost of about a trillion dollars to the U.S. public; and the destruction of a country’s culture and infrastructure. Even the history of Iraq was re-written by people in Washington D.C.

On the other hand, the guy with the moustache who told the truth about all the lies and adhered to the U.N. request for inspections, as well as supplied a 12,000-page report that documented in detail every aspect of Iraq’s former WMD programs, sat in a jail cell awaiting execution.

On December 14, 2006, the Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies (ICRSS) released the results of a poll it conducted for several weeks. The ICRSS is an independent organization based in Baghdad and run by Sadoun Dulaimi, an Iraqi expatriate until 2003. Using a base of more than 2,000 Iraqis, the majority of whom were Shi’ite Moslems, 90% stated that the country was far better off under Saddam Hussein than it was in 2006.

The ICRSS is definitely not a shill for the Ba’ath Party. U.S. government agencies as well as many media outlets referenced its results over the years. The conclusions showed a dramatic difference between the opinions of the Iraqi people and those put forth by the U.S. administration and media.

From the announcement of the guilty verdict on November 5, 2006 until 6:00am on December 30, 2006, Saddam Hussein was the freest man in Iraq although he was behind bars. His mind was clear and he awaited death with dignity. Not once did he crack under torture or pressure.

.Saddam Hussein was not a slave, although his incarceration kept him imprisoned. He was not allowed to see his family, unless, like his sons and grandson, they were shot to death with hundreds of bullets.

At 6:00 a.m. Baghdad time, on December 30, 2006, a mere four days after the appeals court ruling, Saddam Hussein was hanged. Until the lever was pulled, he displayed courage and integrity. The U.S. had waited since 1990 for Saddam to admit defeat or show any sign of capitulation or fear. He never did.

The hanging was the last chance for the U.S. to attain its goal. Administration members hoped he would cringe or break down. Just the opposite occurred. Saddam went to the gallows and refused to wear a hood over his head, although his hangmen were hooded.

A sanitized version of the execution was broadcast to the world. It showed the executioners putting a noose around Saddam’s neck and then the hanging. There was no sound. Shortly after, a real view of the execution came forth. Someone in the room recorded the event on a cell phone.

In the crowd were hecklers. They taunted Saddam Hussein, yet he never allowed himself to be degraded. When one of the executioners shouted, "Long live Muqtada al-Sadr," Saddam mocked the Shi’ite upstart, then he began to recite an Islamic verse and the hangman pulled the plug.

The final act in the U.S. vendetta against Saddam Hussein backfired. The western media reported it as an accomplishment, but people worldwide took to the streets in protest. Millions in India and Brazil demonstrated. Most of the Arab world was laden with protestors. National days of mourning were announced and even Muammar Gadhafi of Libya, not exactly a close comrade of Saddam, announced that his country would erect a statue in his commemoration.

The last 15 minutes of his life made Saddam Hussein the ultimate resister of imperialism to hundreds of millions of people on the Earth. The word "martyr" was now common in describing him.

In the U.S., a few video clips of people celebrating in Sadr City were shown on television. However, no clips of the massive pro-Saddam demonstrations made it past the cutting room floor. Most Americans do not realize that Saddam Hussein was not perceived in much of the world as a ghastly perpetrator of genocide and a brutal sadist.

Saddam Hussein held a 90% approval rating almost four years after his country was destroyed by an illegal invasion but he was hanged, while the U.S. president who was obsessed with the Iraqi president’s demise, and who at the time had an approval rating of 28% of his own country-people, was still alive and ordering the murder of many more Iraqis.

There are various reasons for these macabre and illogical turn of events. Vilified by Western analysts, politicians and journalists for years, it is nothing short of miraculous that Saddam lasted as long as he did. Many of the left are just as responsible for his death as are the neocons they lambaste. Scribe-after-scribe demeaned Saddam Hussein since 1990, most of the time relaying lies and myths about the man and his Ba’ath Party. No lie was too big if it was sensational enough to acquire headlines. Even when some of the lies were uncovered, such as those of the human shredding machine, or the mobile biological weapons labs, or the aluminum tubes for Iraq’s non-existent nuclear weapons program, the press did not acknowledge the truth. They went along making up new allegations. Because it normally took months to investigate the falsehoods, when the truth emerged, the public read little. To them, the original story stuck in their minds. Many people should be considered murderers for Saddam Hussein’s hanging: not just the hangman, but everyone who fueled the fire of hatred against him, including members of the "progressive" press who helped pass on the lies.

The events leading up to Saddam’s execution are preposterous, almost surreal. A bunch of one-time Iraqis, who had not lived in the country for decades, were flown into Iraq by the U.S. to run the country. A bible-toting, combat-boot-wearing administrator with no knowledge of any Arab country or culture (Paul Bremer), changed the country’s laws and constitution, as well as took away state-ownership of crucial industries.

When the Ba’athist agenda took hold in the 1970s, the government introduced many revolutionary aspects to Iraqi life: the equality of women; universal education; universal healthcare; much-improved public transportation; emphasis on science, etc. By the 1980s, Iraq was thriving and the crown jewel of the Middle East. But, along with the improvements came jealousy and greed. The U.S., because of its no-questions-asked affinity to Israel, had to take Iraq back a few notches. Oil was quickly becoming a symbol of world power, not just something to keep a country’s energy requirements in place.

In other words, Iraq was now worth fighting for. It no longer was the antiquated nation of a few decades ago. Saddam Hussein was the driving force behind the transformation of Iraq. Gradually, the U.S., with other Western powers, wanted some of Iraq’s black gold. Little-by-little, the country was degraded, beginning on January 17, 1991. Twelve years of an embargo weakened it further, but it did not kill Iraq. It took a massive invasion in 2003 and a ruthless occupation to finish the country off.

Iraq has been totally destroyed, not just physically, but emotionally. All of Saddam Hussein’s enemies hold equal responsibility in the destruction. They not only murdered Saddam, but Iraq as well. Shortly after March 2003, some people and institutions, such as Ahmed Chalabi and Haliburton, made a quick financial killing. Those days are gone. Today’s thieves in the stooge government can only count on small change to steal. The Iraqi people had everything they own, physically and emotionally, stolen.

SADDAM HUSSEIN'S GREATEST LEGACY: DECEMBER 2003 TO DECEMBER 2006

Part One

Saddam Hussein was Iraq’s leader from 1973 (officially becoming Iraq’s president in 1979) to April 2003. His legacy is two-fold. On the one hand, he and the Ba’ath Party were the impetus behind turning Iraq from an Arab nation indistinguishable from its Arab neighbors to the most advanced Arab country in history. From 1973 to 1990, the literacy rate in Iraq rose from 35% to over 90%. Thousands of miles of roads were built and the country was completely electrified. Excellent universal health care and education from primary school to university were available at no cost. Foreign scholars and writers were invited to visit Iraq and write about the country, as well as the Arab world. The Iraqi government gave them housing and paid their salaries so they could gain and disseminate information. In 1987, the New York Times called Baghdad "The Paris of the Middle East." (See Appendix V: Interview with Salah al-Mukhtar, the former Iraqi ambassador to India and Vietnam. He goes into detail about the history of Iraq’s transformation in the 1970s.)

On the other hand, after the U.S. attack on Iraq in 1991 that destroyed much of the country, and a 12-year devastating embargo, Saddam Hussein’s critics blamed him for the demise of the country that once was the jewel of the Arab world: the country his leadership produced.

Saddam Hussein’s name was used by mainstream Western media to depict a barbaric and sadistic person. The scribes conveniently forgot, or did not take the time to learn about, the years in which Iraq was the premier Arab state that offered more human rights to its public than other Arab nations, especially in the area of freedom of religion and the liberation of women.

This section is not a history of his regime, but a view of him and his steadfastness after April 9, 2003, the date to which many people refer as "The Fall of Baghdad."

On April 9, 2003, Saddam Hussein made his last public appearance. He was surrounded by tens of thousands of supporters in Baghdad who raised him up to the roof of his car so he could wave to them all. Then, the car sped away.

Speculation was rampant for the next few months. Was Saddam alive or dead? Was he involved with the quickly-growing resistance? Nobody seemed to know.

Then, in December 2003, we all saw the photos of a disheveled Saddam Hussein after he was pulled out of a "spider hole" in a town near Tikrit. The administration laughed and the U.S. public made jokes about him and his hiding place.

The room was dirty. There was an empty can of Spam. The story was that he was holed up there and was totally irrelevant to Iraq. His day was done and he was now in the hands of Iraq’s liberators. What you saw wasn’t real. Nothing of this scenario was true.

On March 8, 2005, United Press International (UPI) ran a short press release titled "Public Version of Saddam Capture Fiction." It received little publicity in the U.S., but some foreign news agencies did run the story

The UPI press release consisted of quotes from an ex-U.S. Marine of Lebanese descent, Nadim Rabeh. In addition to the U.S. version of the capture date being off by two days, during an interview in Lebanon, Rabeh stated:

Rabeh recounted how Saddam fired at them with a gun from the window of a room on the second floor. Then, the Marines shouted at him in Arabic, "You have to surrender. There is no point in resisting."

How did we come to see the pictures of the hole and a scruffy-looking Saddam Hussein? According to Rabeh, "Later on, a military production team fabricated the film of Saddam’s capture in a hole, which was in fact a deserted well."

The former Marine’s account mixes with the rendition Saddam Hussein gave his lawyer when they had their first meeting. Saddam told him that he was captured in a friend’s house and that he was drugged and tortured for two days, hence the pictures of Saddam looking bedraggled.

All the major news networks and publications showed pictures of the hole and a beleaguered Saddam: Time Magazine, CNN News, magazines, daily newspapers, etc. You name it and they published it. But, they were all wrong. Not one publication took the time to research the story. They ran the pictures supplied by the U.S. military and parroted the lines they were given.

This was not the first time something similar has occurred. After the 1989 invasion of Panama, the U.S. allowed the press to enter Manuel Noriega’s office. He was portrayed as a sexual pervert. In the office were pictures of young boys, a picture of Hitler, red underpants and pornographic magazines.

A few months later, the first Marine to enter Noriega’s office was released from the Corps. He eventually talked to a reporter and gave his story of the encounter. He maintained that the contents of the office included only a desk, a telephone, a chair, and a typewriter.

With Saddam, the props were changed. They were made to make Saddam look like a caged animal on the run who only had the basic elements to survive. No one asked questions of what should have been obvious. For instance, how did Saddam Hussein come into possession of a can of Spam? There was absolutely no place in Iraq where Spam was sold. It contains pork, a food forbidden from a Moslem’s diet.

A few months after his capture, a picture was widely distributed that gained much publicity. It showed a bunch of U.S. soldiers standing next to an Iraqi building on which a painted illustration depicted the blowing up of the World Trade Center. The inference was that Iraqis took glee in the acts of the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9-11-2001.

If one looked close, it was evident that the soldiers were standing on the base path of a disused baseball field. There were no baseball fields in Iraq. Upon closer scrutinizing, the trees were typical southeastern U.S. types that are not indigenous to Iraq.

The photo was bogus. It was filmed in the U.S., but, the harm had been done. Many news agencies had distributed the picture. Its contents inflamed U.S. citizens even more about the Iraqi people.

When Saddam was captured, U.S. authorities said he was a spent force and he had no say in the ever-growing resistance. This was another propaganda exercise because subsequent information shows he was heading the resistance and called many shots. For instance, on Paul Wolfowitz’ first visit to Baghdad, he stayed at the Hotel al-Rashid. A rocket fired at the building killed a U.S. colonel on the floor just above Wolfowitz, who was visibly shaken by the incident. Saddam Hussein personally ordered that strike.

Many Iraqis challenged the scenario of Saddam’s capture. The U.S. administration thought that by humiliating him, the Iraqi public would discount his presence. Just the opposite occurred. On the evening of the announcement of Saddam’s capture, pro-Saddam Hussein rallies sprung up. His supporters, who, instead of looking at him as a humiliated ex-leader, showed their admiration for him because they knew the U.S. story of his capture was fabricated. Students in schools brought pictures of Saddam to class. In one instance, U.S. military personnel surrounded a Baghdad school and apprehended a few dozen 14-year-old students, whom they tortured for a few hours.

The image of a cowardly Saddam giving up without a fight did not set well with Iraqis. A retired colonel in the Iraqi army sent me the following responses to the capture:

• Saddam’s inside wear was very clean, which gives the impression he was not in a hole.
• At the time they said the captured him, no dates were available, but the trees they showed in the films had fresh dates on the palm trees and this was not possible.
• My house is in the Adhamiya and I can say that I saw Saddam after they announced the fall of Baghdad. I saw him myself. He was standing on the bonnet of a car. He was giving smiles to the people around him who were encouraging him by their loyalty, which they always had.
• As I know, Saddam was on top of the battle at the airport.
• What I heard was that he was on top of many assaults against the Americans.

Iraq Screen published an article shortly before Saddam Hussein’s assassination. The author interviewed an Iraqi officer of the Republican Guard who participated in the battle for the airport in Baghdad in April 2003. The officer recalled:

From various sources, we now have a totally different story from the one force-fed to us by the U.S. administration. Instead of Saddam Hussein being a coward who fled and was caught in a hole in the ground, he was now the president, who, under siege, met publicly with his people on April 9, 2003 (video of this was shown on U.S. television) after personally being involved with several battles against the invaders, and who created a network of resistance while tens of thousands of U.S. military people were looking for him.

Shortly before his hanging, Saddam spoke of his days on the run with his lawyers. For nine months, he openly conducted the resistance, many times right under the noses of his would-be captors. He told of swimming in the Tigris River or using a small boat if he needed to maneuver in the area.

Most 66-year-old men would be contemplating retirement. But, Saddam Hussein lived off his wits, the land, and with comrades for nine months, all the time coordinating a resistance against illegal invaders of his country. Most men half his age would not be able to withstand the physical challenges of such a routine. It is hard to conceive how a man of his age endured more than a lifetime of hardship, torture and personal bereavement in just three-and-a –half years without losing his mental faculties or selling out to his opponents.

Unfortunately, the U.S. government is in possession of all of Iraq’s records prior to April 2003. Not one word will be mentioned that will contradict the U.S. rewriting of Iraq’s history. At best, we will have to rely on anecdotal accounts and eye witnesses. It is neither the best nor the most accurate form of history, but it’s all we have now.

On November 5, 2006, Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death by hanging. The verdict came after what could possibly be called the worst travesty of justice ever seen in a courtroom.

For his first few months in captivity, he was not allowed to see a lawyer. In that time, he was tortured and questioned. He also was offered deals by the U.S. that would have obtained him a "get out of jail free" pass if he cooperated and gave the captors information about the resistance. He never capitulated.

Saddam Hussein was not allowed to see his family. Most of his correspondence to them was either not delivered, or highly censored. By now, most human beings would be willing to say anything their kidnappers desired.

In 2004, Frank Morrow, producer of one of the finest political shows ever seen on U.S. TV screens, Alternative Views, was asked about Saddam’s plight in comparison to that of another president kidnapped by the U.S., Manuel Noriega. He discussed how Noriega collapsed after a few days of U.S. incarceration. Morrow then stated, "Saddam is made of sterner stuff."

On his first day in court, Saddam was a few minutes late. The judge asked him why he was not on time and Saddam told him that the elevators of the building were not working. The judge then said he would ask the Americans to try to fix the faulty lifts. Saddam looked the judge in the eye and said, "Don’t ask them. You tell them. You are an Iraqi." The judge was silent. The accused gave him a lesson in citizenship.

This was Saddam Hussein’s first court appearance and it was televised. The U.S.-appointed collaborators thought televising the trial would humiliate Saddam in the eyes of the Iraqi public. The ploy backfired. Saddam’s chastising of the judge intrigued the viewers. In future sessions, the sound of the broadcasts were cut if the judge did not want the public to hear what Saddam had to say. The first judge must be given credit for fairness. It appeared that he was giving both sides time to present their cases. Then, he resigned. He publicly stated that the Iraqi government had pressured him and given him instructions not to be fair with Saddam. The next judge was a travesty and he made it be known from his first day that there would not be a fair trial for Saddam Hussein.

We have read page-after-page of the illegality of Saddam’s trial in various media. The anomalies are for too many to address here. However, with each preposterous turn, Saddam kept his ground and never capitulated to the court. (See Appendixes X and XI for an interview with Curtis Doebbler, a member of Saddam Hussein’s legal team, and the U.N. report that vilified the U.S. and Iraqi governments concerning the fairness of the trial.)

For months, every conceivable scenario emerged: Saddam was dragged out of court; his lawyers were kicked out of court; defense witnesses were tortured by the court; the judge destroyed a videotape that clearly showed the head prosecutor was lying; and Saddam and a few of his comrades went on hunger strikes.

Still, he showed up in court with the wit and physical appearance of a man decades younger. All the atrocities committed against him never made him appear to be desperate and he never showed signs of caving in.

Several times, Saddam was approached by U.S. officials to make a deal. The Iraqi resistance had grown to a formidable foe and the U.S. knew that Saddam still held enough power to persuade a major portion of the resistance to lay down its weapons. Instead of accepting an offer for his freedom on some small island in the Pacific, Saddam retained his dignity. Other Ba’ath Party members who were imprisoned were given chances to be freed and made wealthy if they testified against Saddam. They refused to sell out.

PRECEDING "FITNA" AND "OBSESSION"

In the past year, we have seen much publicity about two anti-Muslim movies: "Fitna" and "Obsession." Although Obsession was released a few years ago, it did not make headlines until the 2008 U.S. election campaign when a group paid for the insertion of 28 million DVDs of the movie into U.S. daily newspapers.

Both movies were long on bigotry and short on facts. I have written about both and pointed out some of the vast number of historical mistakes as well as outright lies.

In 2006, another film along the same lines, "Suicide Killers," was released by Pierre Rehov. It was just as slimy. And, it appealed to the same clientele: radical Jewish organizations and individuals, and far right U.S. Christian groups.

Rehov was interviewed in 2006 just before the movie’s release. Rehov’s statements are, for the most part, incredibly bigoted and absurd. His views are present today in various guises of Islamophobic hatred. Web sites, such as www.jihadwatch.org have opened and have a large following. They are well-supported financially.

Unfortunately, the lying methods used by these bigots are finding many recipients. They are propaganda at its worst. In the past few months, I have spoken to people who are decent human beings with integrity and exemplary morals who have bought into the lies. At first, they say that I may not be aware of the dangers of Islam taking over the world. Some have taken my advice to challenge the veracity of the absurd allegations and they have told me that they were conned and were ashamed.

There is a definite danger concerning Islam and its status in the world. However, the danger does not come from Islam, but from those bigots like Rehov who use scare tactics to try and convince people that Islam’s goal is to create terrorists from its followers and then take over the planet. This paranoia produces much more violence and hatred than any suicide bomber and the results are much more disastrous. Just look at the score sheet: in the past 20 years, a few thousand people have been killed in suicide bombing attacks (including 9-11), but more than three million Muslims have been killed by U.S. and British bombs, missiles, bullets, and rockets. If the millions were not murdered, there probably would have been no 9-11 or other instances that would drive someone to the point of being a suicide bomber.

Rehov and those who use tactics similar to his are responsible for those suicide bomber who carry out their tasks. The citizens of Western countries have allowed their governments to create havoc against countries with a predominately Muslim population because of the desensitizing of killing Muslims. When one Muslim kills a Westerner, he/she is a terrorist. When the U.S. or Britain use phosphorus bombs to kill thousands of Muslims in a short period of time, it is called "defending our nation."

Here is the interview with Rehov:

SAME SHIT DIFFERENT CENTURIES (Part Five)

A Native American author, William Apes, of the Pequot tribe wrote Eulogy on King Philip and delivered the speech in Boston in 1836 to a group of descendants of the original pilgrims of 1620. It was about racism, deceit, slaughter and imperialism. King Philip was the Anglicized name of the Wampanoag chief, Metacomet.

One may think that Eulogy on King Philip is merely an historical account of the white man’s imperialism, but it is far more. Apes’ address in Boston was delivered in 1836 and he told of events that occurred from 1620 to 1676. But, his words are uncannily precise in describing the world today. One can change the dates and places and see an accurate view of today’s imperialistic aspirations of the U.S.

This is the fifth of five parts of "Eulogy on King Philip. For more than a year, the Wampanoag won battle-after-battle against the pilgrims. But, disease and lack of food helped destroy what the pilgrims couldn’t: the Wampanoag tribe.

Even in this, the methods used were almost identical to those employed by the U.S. today in showing victory. Metacomet’s wife and son were captured and sold into slavery. Once the U.S. occupied Iraq, Saddam Hussein’s wife and daughters quickly left the country before they were captured. Today, they live in exile and are on Interpol’s list of wanted terrorists.

Metacomet’s whereabouts were exposed to the pilgrims by an Indian. According to Apes:

The murders of Uday and Qusay Hussein occurred because of an Iraqi telling the U.S. military where they were. As with Metacomet, a traitor sold out his country.

Without knowing exact figures, I would guess the only difference between the deaths of Metacomet and the Hussein brothers would be in the amount of compensation paid to the traitors. Metacomet’s betrayer was given the head and one hand of Metacomet. For a few years, he was allowed to show them to the whites of southern New England and gain pocket change in donations. The Husssein brothers were chopped to pieces by hundreds of U.S. military personnel who shot bullets, rockets, missiles and bombs into the house where they were staying. The stooge, a distant family member, received a $30 million payday from the U.S. Despite the variance in pay, in both instances the bodies were dismembered and shown to the world as one would show a trophy for a sporting achievement.

In my opinion, no finer piece has been written by anyone in describing the horrors of the imperialistic actions of a government. Apes’ words were uttered almost two centuries ago, yet they are precise today.

(Part Five)

************

After Philip had his wife and son taken, sorrow filled his heart; but not withstanding, as determined as over to be revenged, though was pursued by the duped Indians and Church, into a swamp; one of the men proposing to Philip that he had better make peace with the enemy, upon which he slew him on the spot. And the pilgrims being also repulsed by Philip, were forced to retreat with the loss of one man in particular, whose name was Thomas Lucas, of Plymouth. We rather suspect that he was some related to Lucas and Hedge, who made their famous speeches against the poor Marshpees, in 1834, in the Legislature, in Boston, against freeing them from slavery, that their fathers, the pilgrims, had made of them for years.

Philip’s forces had now become very small, so many having been duped away by the whites, and killed, that it was no easy surrounding him. Therefore, upon the 12^th of August, Captain Church surrounded the swamp where Philip and his men had encamped, early in the morning, before they had risen, doubtless led on by an Indian who was either compelled or hired to turn traitor. Church had now place his guard so that it was impossible for Philip to escape without being shot. It is doubtful, however, whether they would have taken him if he had not been surprised. Suffice it to say, however, this was the case. A sorrowful morning to the poor Indians, to lose such a valuable man. When coming out of the swamp, he was fired upon by an Indian, and killed dead on the spot.

I rejoice that it was even so, that the pilgrims did not have the pleasure of tormenting him. The white man’s gun missing fire lost the honor of killing the truly great man, Philip. The place where Philip fell was very muddy. Upon this news, the pilgrims gave three cheers; then Church ordering his body to be pulled out of the mud, while one of those tender-hearted Christians exclaims, what a dirty creature he looks like. And we have also Church’s speech upon that subject, as follows: For as much as he caused many a pilgrim to lie above ground unburied, to rot, not one of his bones shall be buried. With him fell five of his best and most trusty men; one the son of a chief, who fired the first gun in the war.

Captain Church now orders him to be cut up. Accordingly, he was quartered and hung up upon four trees; his head and one hand given to the Indian who shot him, to carry about to show. At which sight it so overjoyed the pilgrims, that they would give him money for it; and in this way obtained a considerable sum. After which, his head was sent to Plymouth, and exposed upon a gibbet for twenty years; and his hand to Boston, where it was exhibited in savage triumph; and his mangled body denied a resting place in the tomb, as thus adds the poet,

I think that as a matter of honor, that I can rejoice that no such evil conduct is recorded of the Indians; that they never hung up any of the white warriors, who were head men. And we add the famous speech of Dr. Increase Mather; he says, during the bloody contest, the pious fathers wrestled hard and long with their God, in prayer that he would prosper their arms, and deliver their enemies into their hands. And when upon stated days of prayer, the Indians got the advantage, it was considered as a rebuke of divine providence, (we suppose the Indian prayed best then) which stimulated them to more ardor. And on the contrary, when the prevailed, they considered it as an immediate terposition in their favor. The Doctor closes thus: Nor could they, the pilgrims, cease crying to the Lord against Philip, until they had prayed the bullet through his heart. And in speaking of the slaughter of Philip’s people at Narragansett, he says, "We have heard of two and twenty Indians captains slain, all of them, and brought to hell in one day. Again, in speaking of a Chief who had sneered at the pilgrims’ religion, and who had withal, added a most hideous blasphemy, immediately upon which a bullet took him in the head, and dashed out his brains, sending his cursed soul in a moment among the devils and blasphemers in hell forever." It is true that this language is sickening, and is as true as the sun in the heavens, that such language was made use of, and it was a common thing for all the pilgrims to curse the Indians, according to the order of their priests. It is also wonderful how they prayed, that they should pray the bullet through the Indian’s heart, and their souls down to hell. If I had any faith in such prayers, I should begin to think that soon we should all be gone. However, if this is the way they pray, that is bullets through peoples’ hearts, I hope they will not pray for me; I should rather be excused. But to say the least, there is no excuse for their ignorance how to treat their enemies, and pray for them. If the Dr. and his people had only turned to the 23^rd of Luke, and 34^th verse, and heard the words of their Master, whom they pretended to follow, they would see that their course did utterly condemn them; or the 7^th of Acts, and 60^th verse, and heard the language of the pious Stephen, we think it vastly different from the pilgrims; he prayed, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. No curses were heard from these pious martyrs.

I do not hesitate to say, that through the prayers, preaching, and examples of those pretended pious, has been the foundation of all the slavery and degradation in the American Colonies, towards colored people. Experience has taught me that this has been a most sorry and wretched doctrine to us poor ignorant Indians. I will mention two or three things to amuse you a little; that is, as I was passing through Connecticut, about 15 years ago, where they are so pious that they kill the cats for killing rats, and whip the beer barrels for working upon the Sabbath, that in a severe cold night, when the face of the earth was one glare of ice, dark and stormy, I called at a man’s house to know if I could not stay with him, it being about nine miles to the house where I then lived, and knowing him to be a rich man, and with all very pious, knowing that if he had a mind he could do it comfortably, and with all we were both members of one church. My reception, however, was almost as cold as the weather, only he did not turn me out of doors; if he has I knew not but I should have frozen to death. My situation was a little better than being out, for he allowed a little wood, but no bed, because I was an Indian. Another Christian asked me to dine with him, and put my dinner behind the door; I thought this was a queer compliment indeed.

About two years ago, I called at an inn in Lexington; and a gentleman present, not spying me to be an Indian, began to say they ought to be exterminated. I took it up in our defence, though not boisterous, but coolly; and when we came to retire, finding that I was an Indian, he was unwilling to sleep opposite my room, for fear of being murdered before morning. We presume his conscience plead guilty. These things I mention to show that the doctrines of the pilgrims has grown up with the people.

But not to forget Philip and his lady, and his prophecy; it is, (that is 1671) when Philip went to Boston, his clothing was worth nearly one hundred dollars. It is said by some of the writers in those days, that their money being so curiously wrought, that neither Jew nor devil could counterfeit it. A high encomium upon Indian arts; and with it they used to adorn their Sagamores, in a curious manner. It was said that Philip’s wife was neatly attired in the Indian style; some of the white females used to call her a proud woman, because she would not bow down to them, and was so particular in adorning herself. Perhaps while these ladies were so careful to review the Queen, they had forgot that she was truly one of the greatest women there was among them, although not quite so white. But while we censure others for their faults, in spending so much time to view their fair and handsome features, whether colored or white, we would remind all the fair sex it is what they all love, that is jewels and feathers. It was what the Indian women used to love, and still love. And customs, we presume, that the whites brought from their original savage fathers, 1000 years ago. Every white that knows their own history, knows there was not a whit difference between them and the Indians of their days.

But who was Philip, that made all this display in the world; that put an enlightened nation to flight, and won so many battles? It was a son of nature; with nature’s talent alone. And who did he have to contend with? With all the combined arts of cultivated talents of the old and new world. It was like putting one talent against a thousand. And yet Philip with that, accomplished more than all of them. Yes, he out-did the well-disciplined forces of Greece, under the command of Philip, the Grecian Emperor; for he was never enabled to lay such plans of allying the tribes of the earth together, as Philip of Mount Hope did. And even Napoleon patterned after him, in collecting his forces and surprising the enemy. Washington, too, pursued many of his plans in attacking the enemy, and thereby enabling him to defeat his antagonists and conquer them. What, then, shall we say; shall we not do right to say that Philip, with his one talent,, out-strips them all with their ten thousand? No warrior of any age, was ever known to pursue such plans as Philip did. And it is well known that Church and nobody else could have conquered, if his people had not used treachery, which was owing to their ignorance; and after all, it is a fact that it was not the pilgrims that conquered him, it was Indians. And as to his benevolence, it was very great; no one in history can accuse Philip of being cruel to his conquered foes; that he used them with more hospitality than they, the pilgrims did, cannot be denied; and that he had knowledge and forethought, cannot be denied. As Mr. Gooking, in speaking of Philip says, that he was a man of good understanding and knowledge in the best things. Mr. Gooking it appears was a benevolent man, and a friend to Indians.

How deep then was the thought of Philip, when he could look from Maine to Georgia, and from the ocean to the lakes, and view with one look all his brethren withering before the more enlightened to come; and how true his prophecy, that the white people would not only cut down their groves, but would enslave them. Had the inspiration of Isaiah been there, he could not have been more correct. Our groves and hunting grounds are gone, our dead are dug up, our council-fires are put out, and a foundation was laid in the first Legislature, to enslave our people, by taking from them all rights which has been strictly adhered to ever since. Look at the disgraceful laws, disfranchising us as citizens. Look at the treaties made by Congress, all broken. Look at the deep-rooted plans laid, when a territory becomes a State, that after so many years, the laws shall be extended over the Indians that live within their boundaries. Yes, every charter that has been given with the view of driving the Indians out of the States, or dooming them to become chained under desperate laws, that would make them drag out a miserable life as one chained to the galley; and this is the course that has been pursued for nearly two hundred years. A fire, a canker, created by the pilgrims from across the Atlantic, to burn and destroy my poor unfortunate brethren, and it cannot be denied. What then shall we do, shall we cease crying, and say it is all wrong, or shall we bury the hatchet and those unjust laws, and Plymouth Rock together, and become friends. And will the sons of the pilgrims aid in putting out their fire and destroying the canker that will ruin all that their fathers have left behind them to destroy? (By this we see how true Philip spake.) If so, we hope we shall not hear it said from ministers and church members, that we are so good no other people can live with us, as you know it is a common thing for them to say, Indians cannot live among Christian people; no, even the President of the United States tells the Indians they cannot live among civilized people, and we want you lands, and must have them, and will have them. As if he had said to them, we want your lands for our use to speculate upon, it aids us in paying off our national debt and supporting us in Congress, to drive you off.

You see, my red children, that our fathers carried on this scheme of getting your lands for our use, and we have now become rich and powerful; and we have a right to do with you just as we please; we claim to be your fathers. And we think we shall do you a great favor, my dear sons and daughters, to drive you out, to get you away out of the reach of our civilized people, who are cheating you, for we have no law to reach them, we cannnot protect you although you be our children. So it is no use, you need not cry, you must go, even if the lions devour you, for we promised the land you have to somebody else long ago, perhaps twenty or thirty years; and we did it without your consent, it is true. But this has been the way our fathers first brought us up, and it is hard to depart from it; therefore you shall have no protection from us. Now while we sum up this subject. Does it not appear that the cause of all wars from beginning to end, was and is for the want of good usage? That the whites have always been the aggressors, and the wars, cruelties and blood shed is a job of their own seeking, and not the Indians? Did you ever know of Indians’ hurting those who was kind to them? No. We have a thousand witnesses to the contrary. You, every male and female declare it to be the fact. We often hear of the wars breaking out upon the frontiers, and it is because the same spirit reigns there that reigned here in New England; and wherever there are any Indians, that spirit still reigns: and at present, there is no law to stop it. What, then, is to be done; let every friend of the Indians now seize the mantle of Liberty and throw it over hose burning elements that has spread with such fearful rapidity, and at once extinguish them forever. It is true, that now and then a feeble voice has been raised in our favor. Yes, we might speak of distinguished men, but they fall so far short in the minority, that it is heard but at a small distance. We want trumpets that sound like thunder, and men to act as though they were going at war with those corrupt and degrading principles that will give every one his due; and then shall wars cease, and the weary find rest. Give the Indian his rights, and you may be assured that war will cease.

But, by this time you have been enabled to see that Philip’s prophesy has come to pass; therefore, as a man of natural abilities, I shall pronounce him the greatest man that was ever in America; and so it will stand, until he is proved to the contrary, to the everlasting disgrace of the pilgrims’ fathers.

Having now given historical facts, and an exposition in relation to ancient times, by which we have been enabled to discover the foundation which destroyed our common fathers, in their struggle together; it was indeed nothing more than the spirit of avarice and usurpation of power, that has brought people in all ages to hate and devour each other. And I cannot for one moment look back upon what is past and call it religion. NO, it has not the least appearance like it. Do not then wonder, my dear friends, at my bold and unpolished statements; though I do not believe that truth wants any polishing whatever. And I can assure you, that I have no design to tell an untruth, but facts alone. Oft have I been surprised at the conduct of those who pretend to be Christians, to see how they were affected towards those who were of a different cast, professing one faith. Yet, the spirit of degradation has always been exercised towards us poor and untaught people. If we cannot read, we can see and feel; and we find no excuse in the Bible for Christians conducting towards us as they do.

It is said that in the Christian’s guide, that God is merciful, and they that are his followers are like him. How much mercy do you think has been shown towards Indians, their wives and their children? Not much, we think. No. And ye fathers, I will appeal to you that are white. Have you any regard for your wives and children, for those delicate sons and daughters? Would you like to see them slain and laid in heaps, and their bodies devoured by the vultures and wild beasts of prey? And their bones bleaching in the sun and air, till they moulder away, or were covered by the falling leaves of the forest, and not resist? No. Your hearts would break with grief, and with all the religion and knowledge you have, it would not impede your force to take vengeance upon your foe, that had so cruelly conducted thus, although God has forbid you in so doing. For he has said, vengeance is mine, and I will repay. What, then, my dear affectionate friends, can you think of those who have been so often betrayed, routed and stripped of all they possess, of all their kindred in the flesh? Can, or do you think we have no feeling? The speech of Logan, the white man’s friend, is no doubt fresh in your memory, that he intended to live and die the friend of the white man; and that he always fed them and gave them the best his cabin afforded; and he appealed to them if they had not been well used; to which they never denied. After which, they murdered all of his family in cold blood; which roused his passions to be revenged upon the whites. This circumstance is but one in a thousand.

Upon the banks of Ohio, a party of two hundred white warriors, in 1757, or about that time, came across a settlement of Christian Indians, and falsely accused them of being warriors; to which they denied, but all to no purpose; they were determined to massacre them all. They, the Indians, then asked liberty to prepare for the fatal hour. The white savages then gave them one hour, as the historian said. They then prayed together; and in tears and cries, upon their knees, begged pardon of each other, of all they had done. After which, they informed the white savages that they were now ready. One white man then begun with a mallet, and knocked them down, and continued his work until he had killed fifteen, with his own hand; then saying it ached, he gave the commission to another. And thus they continued till they had massacred nearly ninety men, women and children, all these innocent of any crime. What sad tales these are for us to look upon the massacre of our dear fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters; and if we speak, we are then called savages for complaining. Our affections for each other, are the same as yours; we think as much of ourselves as you do of yourselves. When our children are sick, we do all we can for them; they lie buried deep in our affections; if they die, we remember it long, and mourn in after years. Children also cleave to their parents; they look to them for aid, they do the best they know how to do for each other; and when strangers come among us, we use them as well as we know how; we feel honest in whatever we do, we have no desire to offend any one. But when we are so deceived, it spoils all our confidence in our visitors. And although I can say that I have some dear, good friends among white people, yet I eye them with a jealous eye, for fear they will betray me. Having been deceived so much by them, how can I help it; being brought up to look upon white people as being enemies and not friends, and by the whites treated as such, who can wonder? Yes, in vain have I looked for the Christian to take me by the hand and bid me welcome to his cabin, as my fathers did them, before we were born; and if they did, it was only to satisfy curiosity, and not to look upon me as a man and a Christian. And so all of my people have been treated, whether Christians or not. I say then, a different course must be pursued, and different laws must be enacted, and all men must operate under one general law. And while you ask yourselves, that do they, the Indians, want? you only have to look at the unjust laws made for them, and say they want what I want, in order to make men of them, good and wholesome citizens. And this plan ought to be pursued by all missionaries, or not pursued at all. That is not only to make Christians of us, but men; which plan as yet has never been pursued. And when it is, I will then throw my might uon the side of the missions, and do what I can to favor it. But this work must being here first, in New England.

Having now closed, I would say that many thanks is due from me to you, though an unworthy speaker, for your kind attention; and I wish you to understand that we are thankful for every favor; and you and I have to rejoice that we have not to answer for our fathers’ crimes, neither shall we do right to charge them one to another. We can only regret it, and flee from it, and from henceforth, let peace and righteousness be written upon our hearts and hands forever, is the wish of a poor Indian

SAME SHIT DIFFERENT CENTURIES (Part Four)

A Native American author, William Apes, of the Pequot tribe wrote Eulogy on King Philip and delivered the speech in Boston in 1836 to a group of descendants of the original Pilgrims of 1620. It was about racism, deceit, slaughter and imperialism. King Philip was the Anglicized name of the Wampanoag chief, Metacomet.

One may think that Eulogy on King Philip is merely an historical account of the white man’s imperialism, but it is far more. Apes’ address in Boston was delivered in 1836 and he told of events that occurred from 1620 to 1676. But, his words are uncannily precise in describing the world today. One can change the dates and places and see an accurate view of today’s imperialistic aspirations of the U.S.

For years prior to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, President Saddam Hussein warned the Arab world of U.S. intentions to colonize the area. In addition, he told his countrypeople the deprivations they would experience, including the shaming of them and their culture. Shortly before the beginning of King Philip’s War, Chief Metacomet gave an inspirational and realistic speech to his people that mirrored the proclamations Saddam made about the future of Iraq after a U.S. invasion. In the speech, Metacomet stated:

Millions of Iraqis have been forced from their homes. Much of Iraqi farmland was plundered and destroyed by U.S. military operations. And, today Iraqi farmers can not use their own seeds to plant crops. The U.S. administration took a page out of antiquity and applied the same tactics that Metacomet described 328 years prior.

This is the fourth of five parts of "Eulogy on King Philip." Metacomet and his Wampanoag tribe declared full-out war on the European intruders. In this section we see where the Natives dominated the early battles, not losing one.

In my opinion, no finer piece has been written by anyone in describing the horrors of the imperialistic actions of a government. Apes’ words were uttered almost two centuries ago, yet they are precise today.

(Part Four)

************

At the great fight at Pocasset, Philip commanded in person, where he also was discovered with his host in a dismal swamp. He had retired here with his army to secure a safe retreat from the pilgrims, who were in close pursuit of him, and their numbers were so powerful they thought the fate of Philip was sealed. They surrounded the swamp, in hopes to destroy him and his army. At the edge of the swamp, Philip had secreted a few of his men to draw them into ambush, upon which the pilgrims showed fight; Philip’s men retreating and the whites pursuing them till they were surrounded by Philip, and nearly all cut off. This was a sorry time for them; the pilgrims, however, reinforced, but ordered a retreat, supposing it impossible for Philip to escape, and knowing his forces to be great, it was conjectured by some to build a fort to starve him out, as he had lost but few men in the fight. The situation of Philip was rather peculiar, as thew was but one outlet to the swamp, and a river before him nearly seven miles to descend. The pilgrims placed a guard around the swamp for 13 days, which gave Philip and his men time to prepare canoes to make good his retreat; in which he did, to the Connecticut river, and in his retreat lost but fourteen men. We may look upon this move of Philip’s to be equal, if not superior to that of Washington crossing the Delaware. For while Washington was assisted by all the knowledge that art and science could give, together with all the instruments of defence, and edged tools to prepare rafts, and the like helps for safety across the river, Philip was naked as any of these things, possessing only what nature, his mother had bestowed upon him; and yet makes his escape with equal praise. But he would not even lost a man, had it not been for Indians who were hired to fight against Indians, with promise of their enjoying equal rights with their white brethren; but not one of those promises have yet been fulfilled by the pilgrims or their children, though they must acknowledge, that without the aid of Indians and their guides, they must inevitably been swept off. It was only then by deception that the pilgrims gained the country, as their word has never been fulfilled in regard to Indian rights.

Philip having now taken possession of the back settlements of Masschusetts, one town after another was swept off. A garrison being established at Northfield by the pilgrims, and while endeavoring to reinforce it with thirty-six armed, twenty out of their number was killed, and one taken prisoner. At the same time Philip so managed it as to cut off their retreat, and take their ammunition from them.

About the month of August, they took a young lad about fourteen years of age, whom they intended to make merry with the next day; but the pilgrims said God touched the Indians’ heart, and they let him go. About the same time, the whites took an old man of Philip’s, whom they found alone; and because he would not turn traitor, and inform them where Philip was, they pronounced him worthy of death; and by them was executed, cutting off first his arms and then his head. We wonder why God did not touch the pilgrims’ heart, and save them from cruelty, as well as the Indians.

We would now notice an act in King Philip, that outweighs all the other princes and emperors in the world. That is, when his men began to be in want of money, having a coat neatly wrought with mampampeag (i.e. Indian money), he cut it to pieces and distributed it among all his chiefs and warriors; it being better than the old continental money of the revolution, in Washington’s day, as not one Indian soldier found fault with it, as we could ever learn; so that it cheered their hearts still to persevere to maintain their rights and expel their enemies.

On the 18^th of September, the pilgrims made a tour from Hadley to Deerfield, with about eighty men, to bring their valuable articles of clothing and provisions. Having loaded their teams and returning, Philip and his men attacked them, and nearly slew them all. The attack was made near Sugar-loaf Hill. It was said that in this fight, the pilgrims lost their best men of Essex, and all their goods; upon which there were many made widows and orphans in one day. Philip now having done what he could upon the Western frontiers of Massachusetts, and believing his presence was wanted among his allies, the Narragansetts, to keep them from being duped by the pilgrims, he is next known to be in their country.

The pilgrims determined to break down Philip’s power, if possible, with the Narragansetts: thus they raised an army of 1500 strong, to go against them and destroy them if possible. In this, Massachusetts, Plymouth and Connecticut all join in severally, to crush Philip. Accordingly, in December in 1675, the pilgrims set forward to destroy them. Preceding their march, Philip had made all arrangements for the winter, and had fortified himself beyond what was common for his countrymen to do, upon a small island near South Kingston, R.I. Here he intended to pass the winter with his warriors, and their wives and children. About 500 Indian houses was erected of a superior kind, in which was deposited all their stores, tubs of corn, and other things, piled up to a great height, which rendered it bullet proof. It was supposed that about 3000 persons had taken u their residences in it. (I would remark, that Indians took better care of themselves in those days than they have been able to since.) Accordingly on the 19^th day of December, after the pilgrims had been out in the extreme cold, for nearly one month, lodging in tents, and their provision being short, and the air full of snow, they had no other alternative than to attack Philip in the fort. Treachery, however, hastened his ruin; one of his men by hope of reward from the deceptive pilgrims, betrayed his country into their hands. The traitor’s name was Peter. No white man was acquainted with the way, and it would have been almost impossible for them to have found it, much less to have captured it. There was but one point where it could have been entered or assailed with any success, and this was fortified much like a block house, directly in front of the entrance, and also flankers to cover a cross fire. Besides high palisides, an immense hedge of fallen trees of nearly a rod in thickness. Thus surrounded by trees and water, there was but one place that the pilgrims could pass. Nevertheless, they made the attempt. Philip now had directed his men to fire, and every platoon of the Indians swept every white man from the path one after another, until six captains, with a great many of the men had fallen. In the mean time, one Captain Moseley, with some of his men had some who or other gotten into the fort in another way, and surprised them; by which the pilgrims were enabled to capture the fort, at the same time setting fire to it, and hewing down men, women and children indiscriminately. Philip, however, was enabled to escape with many of his warriors. It is said at this battle eighty whites were killed, and one hundred and fifty wounded; many of who died of their wounds afterwards, not being able to dress them till they had marched 18 miles; also leaving many of their dead in the fort. It is said that 700 of the Narrgansetts perished. The greater part of them being women and children.

It appears that God did not prosper them much after all. It is believed that the sufferings of the pilgrims were without a parallel in history; and it is supposed that the horrors and burning elements in Moscow, will bear but a faint resemblance of that scene. The thousands and tens of thousands assembled there with their well disciplined forces, bear but little comparison to that of modern Europe, when the inhabitants, science, manners and customs are taken into consideration. We might well admit the above fact, and say, the like was never known among any heathen nation in the world; for none but those worse than the heathens, would have suffered so much, for the sake of being revenged upon those of their enemies. Philip had repaired to his quarters to take care of his people and not to have them exposed. We should not have wondered quite so much if Philip had gone forward and acted thus. But when a people, calling themselves Christians, conduct in this manner, we think they are censurable, and no pity at all ought to be had for them.

It appears that one of the whites has married one of Philip’s countrymen; and they, the pilgrims, said he was a traitor, and therefore they said he must die. So the quartered him; and as history informs us, they said, he being a heathen, but a few tears were shed at his funeral. Here, then, because a man would not turn and fight against his own wife and family, or leave them, he was considered as a heathen. We presume that no honest man will commend those ancient fathers, for such absurd conduct. Soon after this, Philip and his men left that part of the country, and retired farther back, near the Mohawks; where, in July 1676, some of his men were slain by the Mohawks. Notwithstanding this, he strove to get them to join him; and here it is said that Philip did not do that which was right; that he killed some of the Mohawks and laid it to the whites, in order that he might get them to join him. If so, we cannot consistently believe he did right. But he was so exasperated that nothing but revenge would satisfy him. All this act was no worse than our political men do in our days, of their strife to wrong each other, who profess to be enlightened; and all for the sake of carrying their points. Heathen-like, either by the sword, calumny or deception of every kind; and the late duels among the called high men of honor, is sufficient to warrant my statements. But while we pursue our history in regard to Philip, we find that he made many successful attempts against the pilgrims, in surprising and driving them from their posts, during the year 1676, in February, and through till August, in which time many of the Christian Indians joined him. It is thought by many, that all would have joined him, if they had been left to their choice, as it appears they did not like their white brethren very well. It appears that Philip treated his prisoners with a great deal more Christian-like spirit than the pilgrims did; even Mrs. Rolandson, although speaking with bitterness sometimes of the Indians, yet in her journal she speaks not a word against them. Philip even hires her to work for him, and pays her for her work, and then invites her to dine with him and to smoke with him. And we have many testimonies that he was kind to his prisoners; and when the English wanted to redeem Philip’s prisoners, they had the privilege.

Now did Governor Winthrop, or any of those ancient divines use any of his men so? No. Was it known that they received any of their female captives into their houses and fed them? No; it cannot be found upon history. Were not the females completely safe, and none of them were violated, as they acknowledged themselves? But was it so when the Indian women fell into the hands of the pilgrims? No. Did the Indians get a chance to redeem their prisoners? No. But when they were taken, they were either compelled to turn traitors and join the enemies, or be butchered upon the spot. And this is the dishonest method that the famous Capt. Church used in doing his great exploits; and in no other way could he ever gained one battle. So after all, Church only owes his exploits to the honesty of the Indians, who told the truth, and to his own deceptive heart in duping them. Here it is to be understood, that the whites have always imposed upon the credulity of the Indians. It is with shame, I acknowledge, that I have to notice so much corruption of a people calling themselves Christians. If they were like my people, professing no purity at all, then their crimes would not appear to have such magnitude. But while they appear to be by profession more virtuous, their crimes still blacken. It makes them truly to appear to be like mountains filled with smoke; and thick darkness covering them all around.

But we have another dark and corrupt deed for the sons of the pilgrims to look at, and that is the fight and capture of Philip’s son and wife, and many of his warriors, in which Philip lost about 130 men killed and wounded; this was in August 1676. But the most horrid act was in taking Philip’s son, about ten years of age, and selling him to be a slave away from his father and mother. While I am writing, I can hardly restrain my feelings, to think a people calling themselves Christians should conduct so scandalous, so outrageous, making themselves appear so despicable in the eyes of the Indians; and even now in this audience, I doubt not but there is men honorable enough to despise the conduct of those pretended Christians. And surely none but such as believe they did right, will ever go and undertake to celebrate that day of their landing, the 22^nd of December. Only look at it, then stop and pause. My fathers came here for liberty themselves, and then they must go and chain that mind, that image they professed to serve; not content to rob and cheat the poor ignorant Indians, but must take one of the King’s sons, and make a slave of him. Gentlemen and ladies, I blush at these tales, if you do not, especially when they professed to be a free and humane people. Yes, they did; they took a part of my tribe, and sold them to the Spaniards in Bermuda, and many others; and then on the Sabbath day, these people would gather themselves together, and say that God is no respecter of persons; while the divines would pour firth, "he that says he loves God and hates his brother, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." And at the same time they hating and selling their fellow men in bondage. And there is no manner of doubt but that all my countrymen would have been enslaved if they had tamely submitted. But no sooner would they butcher every white man that come in their way, and even put an end to their own wives and children, and that was all that prevented them from being slaves; yes, all. It was not the good will of those holy pilgrims that prevented, no. But I would speak, and I could wish it might be like the voices of thunder, that it might be heard afar off, even to the ends of the earth. He that will advocate slavery, is worse than a beast, is a being devoid of shame; and has gathered around him the most corrupt and debasing principles in the world; and I care not whether he is a minister or member of any church in the world; no, not excepting the head men of the nation. And he that will not set his face against its corrupt principles, is a coward, and not worthy of being numbered among men and Christians. And conduct too that libels the laws of the country, and the word of God, that men profess to believe in.

SAME SHIT DIFFERENT CENTURIES (Part Three)

A Native American author, William Apes, of the Pequot tribe wrote Eulogy on King Philip and delivered the speech in Boston in 1836 to a group of descendants of the original Pilgrims of 1620. It was about racism, deceit, slaughter and imperialism. King Philip was the Anglicized name of the Wampanoag chief, Metacomet.

One may think that Eulogy on King Philip is merely an historical account of the white man’s imperialism, but it is far more. Apes’ address in Boston was delivered in 1836 and he told of events that occurred from 1620 to 1676. But, his words are uncannily precise in describing the world today. One can change the dates and places and see an accurate view of today’s imperialistic aspirations of the U.S.

For years prior to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, President Saddam Hussein warned the Arab world of U.S. intentions to colonize the area. In addition, he told his countrypeople the deprivations they would experience, including the shaming of them and their culture. Shortly before the beginning of King Philip’s War, Chief Metacomet gave an inspirational and realistic speech to his people that mirrored the proclamations Saddam made about the future of Iraq after a U.S. invasion. In the speech, Metacomet stated:

Millions of Iraqis have been forced from their homes. Much of Iraqi farmland was plundered and destroyed by U.S. military operations. And, today Iraqi farmers can not use their own seeds to plant crops. The U.S. administration took a page out of antiquity and applied the same tactics that Metacomet described 328 years prior.

This is the third of five parts of "Eulogy on King Philip." In my opinion, no finer piece has been written by anyone in describing the horrors of the imperialistic actions of a government. His words were uttered almost two centuries ago, yet they are precise today.

(Part Three)

************

Osamequan, for valuable considerations, in the year 1641, sold to John Brown and Edward Winslow a tract of land eight miles square, situated on both sides of Palmer’s River. Philip, in 1668 was required to sign a quit-claim of the same, which we understand he did in the presence of his counsellors. In the same year, Philip laid claim to a portion of land called New Meadows, alleging that it was not intended to be conveyed in a former deed, for which Mr. Brown paid him forty-four dollars, in goods; so it was settled without difficulty. Also, in 1669, for forty dollars he sold to one John Cook, a whole island, called Nokatay, near Dartmouth. The same year Philip sells a tract of land in Middleborough for fifty-two dollars. In 1671 he sold to Hugh Cole a large tract of land, lying near Swanzey, for sixteen dollars. In 1672 he sold sixteen square miles to William Breton and others, of Taunton, for which he and his chief received five hundred and seventy-two dollars. This contract, signed by himself and chiefs, ends the sales of lands with Philip, for all which he received nine hundred and seventy-four dollars, as far as we can learn by the records.

Here Philip meets with a most bitter insult, in 1673, from one Peter Talmon, of Rhode Island, who complained to the Plymouth Court against Philip, of Mount Hope, predecessor, heir, and administrator of his brother Alexander, deceased, in an action on the case, to the damage of three thousand and two hundred dollars, for which the Court gave verdict in favor of Talmon, the young pilgrim; for which Philip had to make good to the said Talmon a large tract of land at Sapamet and other places adjacent; and for the want thereof, that is, more land that was not taken up, the complaint is greatly damnified. This is the language of the Pilgrim’s Court. Now let us review this a little. The man who bought this land made the contract, as he says, with Alexander, ten or twelve years before; then why did he not bring forward his contract before the Court? It is easy to understand why he did not. Their object was to cheat, or get the whole back again in this way. Only look at the sum demanded, and it is enough to satisfy the critical observer. This course of proceedings caused the Chief and his people to entertain strong jealousies of the whites.

In the year 1668 Philip made a complaint against one Weston, who had wronged one of his men of a gun and some swine; and we have no account that he got any justice for his injured brethren. And, indeed, it would be a strange thing for poor unfortunate Indians to find justice in those Courts of the pretended pious, in those days, or even since; and for a proof of my assertion I will refer the reader or hearer to the records of Legislatures and Courts throughout New England; and also to my book, Indian Nullification.

We would remark still further; who stood up in those days, and since, to plead Indian rights? Was it the friend of the Indian? No; it was his enemies who rose; his enemies, to judge and pass sentence. And we know that such kind of characters as the pilgrims were, in regard to the Indians’ rights, who, as they say, had none, must certainly always give verdict against them, as, generally speaking, they always have. Prior to this insult it appears that Philip had met with great difficulty with the pilgrims; that they appeared to be suspicious of him in 1671; and the pilgrims sent for him, but he did not appear to move as though he cared much for their messenger, which caused them to be still more suspicious. What grounds the pilgrims had is not ascertained, unless it is attributed to a guilty conscience for wrongs done to Indians. It appears that Philip, when he got ready, goes near to them, and sends messengers to Taunton, to invite the pilgrims to come and treat with him; but the governor being either too proud, or afraid, sends messengers to him to come to their residence at Taunton, to which he complied. Among these messengers was the Honorable Roger Williams, a Christian and a patriot, and a friend of the Indians, for which we rejoice. Philip, not liking to trust the pilgrims, left some of the whites in his stead, to warrant his safe return. When Philip and his men had come near the place, some of the Plymouth people were ready to attack him; this rashness was, however, prevented by the Commissioner of Massachusetts, who met there with the Governor, to treat with Philip; and it was agreed upon to meet in the meeting-house. Philip’s complaint was, that the pilgrims had injured the planting grounds of his people. The pilgrims acting as umpires say the charges against them were not sustained; and because it was not, to their satisfaction, the whites wanted that Philip should order all his men to bring in his arms and ammunition; and the Court was to dispose of them as they pleased. The next thing was, that Philip must pay the cost of the treaty, which was four hundred dollars. The Pious Dr. Mather says, that Philip was appointed to pay a sum of money to defray the charges that his insolent clamors had put the Colony to. We wonder if the pilgrims were as ready to pay the Indians for the trouble they put them to. If they were, it was with the instruments of death. It appears that Philip did not wish to make war with them, but compromised with them; and in order to appease the pilgrims he actually did order his men, whom he could not trust, to deliver them up; but his own men withheld, with the exception of a very few.

Now what an unrighteous act this was in the people who professed to be friendly and humane, and peaceable to all men. It could not be that they were so devoid of sense as to think these illiberal acts would produce peace; but contrawise, continual broils. And in fact it does appear that they courted war instead of peace, as it appears from a second council that was held by order of the Governor, at Plymouth, September 13, 1671. It appears that they sent again for Philip; but he did not attend, but went himself and made complaint to the governor, which made him write to the council, and ordered them to desist, to be more mild, and not to take such rash measures. But it appeared that on the 24^th, the scene changed; that they held another council, and for the disturbers of the peace, the intruders upon a peaceable people, say they find Philip guilty of the following charges:

1. That he had neglected to bring in his arms, although competent time had been given him.
2. That he had carried insolently and proudly towards us on several occasions, in refusing to come down to our courts, (when sent for) to procure a right understanding betwixt us.

What an insult this was to his Majesty, and independent Chief to a powerful nation, should come at the at the beck and call of his neighbors whenever they pleased to have him do it. Besides, did not Philip do as he agreed, at Taunton that is in case there was more difficulty they were to leave it to Massachusetts to be settled there in the high council, and both parties were to abide by their decision; but did the pilgrims wait? No. But being infallible, of course they could not err.

The third charge was, harboring divers Indians not his own men; but vagabond Indians.

Now what a charge this was to bring against a King; calling his company vagabonds, because it did not happen to please them; and what right had they to find fault with his company? I do not believe that Philip ever troubled himself about the white people’s company, and prefer charges against them for keeping company with whom they pleased. Neither do I believe he called their company vagabonds, for he was more noble than that.

The fourth charge is, that he went to Massachusetts with his council, and complained against them, and turned their brethren against them.

This was more a complaint against themselves than Philip, inasmuch it represents that Philip’s story was so correct, that they were blameable.

5. That he had not been quite so civil as they wished him to be.

We presume that Philip felt himself much troubled by these intruders, and of course put them off from time to time, or did not take much notice of their proposals. Now such charges as those, we think are to no credit of the pilgrims. However, this council ended much as the other did, in regard to disarming the Indians, which they never were able to do. Thus ended the events of 1671.

But it appears that the pilgrims could not be contented with what they had done, but they must send an Indian, and a traitor, to preach to Philip and his men, in order to convert him and his people to Christianity. The preacher’s name was Sassamon. I would appeal to this audience, it is not certain that the Plymouth people strove to pick a quarrel with Philip and his men. What could have been more insulting than to send a man to them who was false, and looked upon as such; for it is most certain that a traitor was above all others, the more to be detested than any other. And not only so, it was the laws of the Indians, that such a man must die; that he had forfeited his life; and when he made his appearance among them, Philip would have killed him on the spot, if his council had not persuaded him not to. But it appears that in March, 1674, one of Philip’s men killed him, and placed him beneath the ice in a certain pond near Plymouth; doubtless by the order of Philip. After this, search was made for him, and he found there a certain Indian by the name of Patuckson; Tobias, also, his son were apprehended and tried. Tobias was one of Philip’s counsellors, as it appears from the records that the trial did not end here, that it was put over, and that two of the Indians entered into bonds for $400 for the appearance of Tobias at the June term; for which a mortgage of land was taken to that amount, for his safe return. June having arrived, three instead of one are arraigned. There was no one but Tobias suspected at the previous Court. Now two others are arraigned, tried, condemned and executed, (making three in all) in June the 8^th, by hanging and shooting. It does not appear that any more than one was guilty, and it was said that he was known to acknowledge it; but the other two persisted in their innocency to the last.

This murder of the preacher brought on the war a year sooner than it was anticipated by Philip. But this so exasperated King Philip, that from that day he studied to be revenged of the pilgrims; judging that his white intruders had nothing to do in punishing his people for any crime, and that it was in violation of treaties of ancient date. But when we look at this, how bold and how daring it was to Philip, as though they would bid defiance to him, and all his authority, we do not wonder at his exasperation. When the Governor finds that his Majesty was displeased, he then sends messengers to him, and wishes to know why he would make war upon him, (as if he had done all right) and wished to enter into a new treaty with him. The King answered them thus: Your Governor is but a subject of King Charles of England, I shall not treat with a subject; I shall treat of peace only with a King, my brother; wen he comes, I am ready.

This answer of Philip’s to the messengers, is worthy of note throughout the world. And never could a prince answer with more dignity in regard to his official authority than he did; disdaining the idea of placing himself upon a par of the minor subjects of a King; letting them know at the same time, that he felt his independence more than they thought he did. And indeed it was time for him to wake up, for now the subjects of King Charles had taken one of his counsellors and killed him, and he could no longer trust them. Until the execution of these three Indians, supposed to be the murderers of Sasssamon, no hostility was committed by Philip or his warriors. About the time of their trial, he was said to be marching his men up and down the country in arms; but when it was known, he could no longer restrain his young men, who, upon the 24^th of June, provoked the people of Swansey, by killing their cattle and other injuries, which was a signal to commence the war, and what they had desired, as a superstitious notion prevailed among the Indians, that whoever fired the first gun of either party, would be conquered. Doubtless a notion they had received from the pilgrims. It was upon a fast day too, when the first gun was fired; and as the people were returning from church, they were fired upon by the Indians, when several of them were killed. It is not supposed that Philip directed this attack, but was opposed to it. Though it is not doubted that he meant to be revenged upon his enemies; for during some time he had been cementing his countrymen together, as it appears that he had sent to all the disaffected tribes, who also had watched the movements of the comers from the new world, and were as dissatisfied as Philip himself was with their proceedings.

Now around the council fires they meet,

The young nobles for to greet;

Their tales of wo and sorrows to relate,

About the pilgrims, their wretched foes.

And while their fires were blazing high,

Their King and Emperor to greet;

His voice like lightning fires their hearts,

To stand the test or die.

See those pilgrims from the world unknown,

No love for Indians do know:

Although our fathers fed them well

With venison rich, of precious kinds.

No gratitude to Indians now was shown,

From people saved by them alone;

All gratitude that poor Indians do know,

Is, we are robbed of all our rights.

At this council it appears that Philip made the following speech to his chiefs, counsellors and warriors:

Brothers — You see this vast country before us, which the great Spirit gave to our fathers and us; you see the buffalo and deer that now are our support — Brothers, you see these little ones, our wives and children, who are looking to us for food and raiment; and you new see the foe before you, that they have grown insolent and bold; that all our ancient customs are disregarded; the treaties made by our fathers and us are broken, and all of us insulted; our council fires disregarded, and all the ancient customs of our fathers; our brothers murdered before our eyes, and their spirits cry to us for revenge. Brothers, these people from the unknown world will cut down our groves, spoil your hunting and planting grounds, and drive us and our children from the graves of our fathers, and our council fires, and enslave our women and children.

This famous speech of Philip was calculated to arouse them to arms, to do the best they could in protecting and defending their rights. The blow had now been struck, the die was cast, and nothing but blood an carnage was before them. And we find Philip as active as the wind, as dexterous as a giant, firm as the pillars of heaven, and as fierce as a lion, a powerful foe to contend with indeed: and as swift as an eagle, gathering together his forces, to prepare them for the battle. And as it would swell our address too full, in mention all the tribes in Philip’s train of warriors, suffice it to say that from six to seven were with him at different times. When he begins the war, he goes forward and musters about 500 of his men, and arms them complete, and about 900 of the other, making in all about fourteen hundred warriors when he commenced. It must be recollected that this war was legally declared by Philip, so that the colonies had a fair warning. It was no savage war of surprise as some suppose, but one solely provoked by the pilgrims themselves. But when Philip and his men fought, as they were accustomed to do, and according to their mode of war, it was no more than what could be expected. But we hear no particular acts of cruelty committed by Philip during the siege. But we find more manly nobility in him, than we do in all the head pilgrims put together, as we shall see during this quarrel between them. Philip’s young men were eager to do exploits, and to lead captive their haughty lords. It does appear that every Indian heart had been lighted up at the council fires, at Philip’s speech, and that the forest was literally alive with this injured race. And now town after town fell before them. The pilgrims with their forces were ever marching in one directions, while Philip and his forces were marching in another, burning all before them, until Middleborough, Taunton and Dartmouth were laid in ruins, and forsaken by its inhabitants.

HERE WE GO AGAIN

Each election year, a minority in the U.S. has to put up with bigoted and stupid remarks from the candidates. This minority consists of about 30 million U.S. citizens: atheists.

In 1988, while campaigning, George Bush I said that atheists should not be considered citizens because they can not give anything of merit to the U.S. because they did not believe in God. I’m sure that if I wrote to the Internal Revenue Service and said I won’t pay income tax because of my relegation by Bush, they would disagree.

In 1992, Bill Clinton said that he would not appoint an atheist to any position.

The year 2000 heralded another bigoted remark from the Democratic presidential candidate, Al Gore. He wrote to the group of which I am president, the Atheist Coalition of San Diego, and said, "In the U.S., we have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion." He made this statement at the time George Bush II was running around and telling everyone that God had ordered him to run for president.

In the 2004 presidential election, Bush and Kerry spent hours trying to out-religion each other.

The 2008 presidential primaries were laden with religion. Mitt Romney, a Mormon, said that he would not appoint an atheist or a Muslim to any position if he was elected president. This is great stuff coming from the mouth of someone who believed Jesus Christ visited South America a couple of thousand years ago and that protective underwear will keep one safe from the evils of the world.

Obama and Clinton took to the stump many times in trying to show their affinity to religion. Accolades flew about who was the most pious.

Now, we are down to McCain and Obama. For a few days, they kept religion to a minimum in their campaigns. But, like a junkie, the Republicans and Democrats relapsed and recently played the religion card again. This time, atheists were the culprits.

Elizabeth Dole, current Republican senator from North Carolina, ran an ad last week that lied about her opponent and also denigrated atheists. The ad was paid for by the Republican Party and authorized by Dole.

In the ad, two atheist activists, Ellen Johnson and David Silverman, were shown being interviewed a few years ago. Johnson said, "There is no God," and Silverman stated he would like to see the statement "In God We Trust" taken off U.S. currency. Then, the ad says that an atheist held a "secret fundraiser" for Dole’s opponent, Kay Hagan. In fact, the fundraiser was not secret and it was headed by John Kerry. There happened to be an atheist in the room of dozens of people. He probably did not even know Hagan. The ad ends with an actor, imitating Hagan’s voice, saying, "There is no God."

First of all, Johnson and Silverman had nothing to do with the fundraiser and the quotes shown by them were from previous interviews in which they were stating their views on religion and atheism. Next, the using of an actor to portray a voice should be grounds for fraud.

Hagan complained and ran her own ad. In it, she mentioned her religiosity and her years of being a Sunday school teacher. She stood up for herself and made a case showing the fraudulent effort of the Republican Party. However, she did not utter one word about bigotry toward atheists and what is the big deal if an atheist was in the same room.

I would like to make an analogy of this preposterous scenario. Imagine a delivery driver coming to my house to drop off a piece of furniture and he was of the Christian faith. Then, if I decide to run for president of the Atheist Coalition, a post I have held for 13 years, an opponent emerges and says, "Lagauche had a Christian in his house therefore, he believes in God."

Even though the shenanigans of the Republican Party were exposed, atheists still took the brunt of bigoted remarks by Dole’s campaign and the silence of the anti-atheist theme in Hagan’s rebuttal.

Let’s not let Obama off the hook. For some reason, many atheists in the U.S. are giving him a pass on the religion issue. Although he has used religion extensively in his campaign, atheist apologists for Obama maintain that he will listen to our views on separation of religion and government. Their attitudes are similar to those of the "left" who, despite having seen Obama be opposite to their views on imperialism, still support him.

On October 29, 2008, a presidential forum was held in Pennsylvania at which aides of McCain and Obama answered questions from the public. One query concerned how the candidates would try to reach out to atheist voters on the issue of how much religion would be allowed in government.

According to the person who asked the question, Carl Silverman (no relation to David Silverman), McCain’s spokeswoman said McCain was going to be a president of all the people, people "of all faiths and no faiths."

Fair enough. Not too much endorsement of accepting atheist’s ideas, but she didn’t trash us.

Now, Obama’s aides put forth a totally different scene of what his campaign thinks of atheists.

Don Miller, who gave a prayer at the Democratic National Convention, said: "Senator Obama has a policy director and an advisor for many different faiths. He has nothing on atheists or agnostics. There's not this grand effort for the Democrats to reach out to a group of pagans to try to get them to vote for Senator Obama."

Evidently, Miller does not know much about religious beliefs outside of Christianity. Atheists are not pagans. Atheists do not believe in or worship God. Pagans do not believe in a monotheistic God, but they worship nature and invoke various gods and godesses.

As if that weren’t bad enough, Obama’s National Deputy Director for Religious Affairs, D. Paul Monteiro, said: "This (Obama) is not some crazy wacko atheist trying to make sure that your children grow up to marry trees."

Again, another religious "expert" who gets his religious philosophies mixed up.

Imagine if someone used the words "Christian" or "Jew," instead of "atheist," in this manner. He would have been fired on the spot and Obama’s campaign would suffer a huge setback. But, it’s okay to denigrate atheists in such a vile manner.

David Silverman of the organization American Atheists wrote about this performance. He received a phone call from Monteiro saying that he did not make the statement attributed to him. He admitted that the statement was made, but he did not know by whom. In all fairness, Silverman printed Monteiro’s denial. But, the tapes are now being reviewed by Silverman to identify the source. In other words, Monteiro may just be trying to save his own ass. One thing is certain, when the remark was made, not one Obama aide stood up in opposition.

Silverman asked Monteiro, "Does your office include atheists?" Monteiro skirted the issue and said that some volunteers to the Obama campaign may be atheists. In other words, the Obama office does not include atheists.

When I learned of this debacle, I tried to communicate with the Obama campaign. No luck. On the website, one can easily find how to donate money to Obama. But, there is no place for one to communicate with the campaign.

The Obama campaign is all illusion. He has voted for extending the Patriot Act; he has voted for every vile judge that Bush has nominated to the judicial system; he supports offshore drilling for oil; he has voted for every increase in the budget to continue the war in Iraq; he has called Hugo Chavez an "enemy" of the U.S. and he advocates sanctions against Venezuela; he has stated that Jerusalem should be only for Israelis and it should be the capital of Israel; he has stated, "Israel today, Israel tomorrow, Israel forever." The list goes on. Now, with the statements made in Pennsylvania, Obama’s campaign has taken away the last thin straw that atheists had in believing he may listen to them in the areas of religion and government.

On January 21, 2009, the day after Obama will be sworn in (if he wins), many people of the left and many atheists will be extremely disappointed. The only recourse they will have is to wait another four years and once again listen to presidential candidates dismiss them as irrelevant, yet hope against hope that things will change.

SAME SHIT DIFFERENT CENTURIES (Part Two)

A Native American author, William Apes, of the Pequot tribe wrote Eulogy on King Philip and delivered the speech in Boston in 1836 to a group of descendants of the original Pilgrims of 1620. It was about racism, deceit, slaughter and imperialism. King Philip was the Anglicized name of the Wampanoag chief, Metacomet.

One may think that Eulogy on King Philip is merely an historical account of the white man’s imperialism, but it is far more. Apes’ address in Boston was delivered in 1836 and he told of events that occurred from 1620 to 1676. But, his words are uncannily precise in describing the world today. One can change the dates and places and see an accurate view of today’s imperialistic aspirations of the U.S. This is the second of five parts of "Eulogy on King Philip. In my opinion, no finer piece has been written by anyone in describing the horrors of the imperialistic actions of a government. His words were uttered almost two centuries ago, yet they are precise today.

(Part Two)

************

It does not appear that Massasoit or his sons were respected because they were human beings, but because they feared him; and we are led to believe that if it had been in the power of the Pilgrims, they would have butchered them out and out notwithstanding all the piety they professed. Only look for a few moments at the abuses the son of Massasoit received. Alexander being sent for with armed men, and while he and his men were breaking their fast in the morning, they were taken immediately away, by order of the governor, without the least provocation, but merely through suspicion. Alexander and his men saw them, and might have prevented it, but did not, saying the governor had no occasion to treat him in this manner; and the heartless wretch informed him that he would murder him upon the spot, if he did not go with him, presenting a sword at his breast; and had it not been for one of his men he would have yielded himself up upon the spot. Alexander was a man of strong passion, and of a firm mind; and this insulting treatment of him caused him to fall sick of a fever, so that he never recovered. Some of the Indians were suspicious that he was poisoned to death. He died in the year 1662. "After him," says the eminent divine, Dr. Mather, "there rose up one Philip, of cursed memory." Perhaps if the Dr. was present, he would find that the memory of Philip was as far before his, in the view of sound, judicious men, as the sun is before the stars, at noonday. But we might suppose that men like Dr. Mather, so well versed in Scripture, would have known his work better than to have spoken evil of any one, or have cursed any of God’s works. He ought to have known that God did not make his red children for him to curse; but if he wanted them cursed, he could have done it himself. But, on the contrary, his suffering Master commanded him to love his enemies, and to pray for his persecutors, and to do unto others as he would that men should do unto him. Now, we wonder if the sons of the Pilgrims would like to have us, poor Indians, come out and curse the Doctor, and all their sons, as we have been, by many of them. And suppose that, in some future day, our children should repay all these wrongs, would it not be doing as we, poor Indians, have been done to? But we sincerely hope there is more humanity in us, than that.

In the history of Massasoit we find that his own head men were not satisfied with the pilgrims; that they looked upon them to be intruders, and had a wish to expel out of their coast; and no wonder that from the least reports the pilgrims were ready to take it up. A false report was made respecting one Tisquantum, that he was murdered by an Indian, one of Coubantant’s men. Upon this news, one Standish, a vile and malicious fellow, took fourteen of his lewd Pilgrims with him, and at midnight, when a deathless silence reigned throughout the wilderness; not even a bird is heard to send forth her sweet songs to charm and comfort those children of the woods; but all had taken their rest, to commence anew on the rising of the glorious sun. But to their surprise there was no rest for them, but they were surrounded by ruffians and assassins; yes, assassins; that better name can you give them? At that late hour of the night, meeting at a house in the wilderness, whose inmates were nothing but a few helpless females and children; soon a voice is heard — Move not, upon the peril of your life. I appeal to this audience if there was any righteousness in their proceedings? Justice would say no. At the same time some of the females were so frightened, that some of them undertook to make their escape, upon which they were fired upon. Now it is doubtless the case that these females ever saw a white man before, or ever heard a gun fired. It must have sounded to them like the rumbling of thunder, and terror must certainly have filled all their hearts. And can it be supposed that these innocent Indians could have looked upon them as good and trusty men? Do you look upon the midnight robber and assassin as being a Christian, and trust man? These Indians had not done one single wrong act to the whites, but were as innocent of any crimes as any beings in the world. And do you believe that Indians cannot feel and see, as well as white people? If you think so, you are mistaken. Their power of feeling and knowing is as quick as yours. Now this is to be borne, as the pilgrims did as their Master told them to; but what color he was I leave it. But if the real sufferers say one word, they are denounced, as being wild and savage beasts.

But let us look a little further. It appears that in 1630, a benevolent Chief bid the Pilgrims welcome to his shores; and in June 28, 1630, ceded his land to them for the small sum of eighty dollars, now Ipswich, Rowley, and a part of Essex. The following year, at the July term, 1631, these pilgrims of the new world, passed an act in court, that the friendly chief should not come into their houses short of paying fifty dollars, or an equivalent, that is ten beaver skins. Who could have supposed that the meek and lowly followers of virtue would have taken such methods to rob honest men of the woods? But for this insult, the pilgrims had well nigh lost their lives and their all, had it not been prevented by Robbin, an Indian, who apprized them of their danger. And now let it be understood, notwithstanding all the bitter feelings the whites have generally shown toward Indians, yet they have been the only instrument in preserving their lives.

The history of New England writers say, that our tribes were large and respectable. How then, could it be otherwise, but their safety rested in the hands of friendly Indians. In 1647, the pilgrims speak of large and respectable tribes. But let us trace them for a few moments. How have they been destroyed, is it fair means? No. How then? By hypocritical proceedings, by being duped and flattered; flattered by informing the Indians that their God was going to speak to them, and then place them before the cannon’s mouth in a line, and then putting the match to it and kill thousands of them. We might suppose that meek Christians had better gods and weapons than cannon; weapons that were not carnal, but mighty through God, to the pulling down of strong holds. These are the weapons that modern Christians profess to have; and if the pilgrims did not have them, they ought not to be honored as such. But let us again review their weapons , to civilize the nations of this soil. What were they: rum and powder, and ball, together with all the diseases, such as the small pox, and every other disease imaginable; and in this way sweep off thousands and tens of thousands. And then it has been said, that these men who were free from these things, that they could not live among civilized people. We wonder how a virtuous people could live in a sink of diseases, a people who had never been used to them.

And who is to account for those destructions upon innocent families and helpless children? It was said by some of the New England writers, that living babes were found at the breast of their dead mothers. What an awful sight! And to think too, that these diseases were carried among them on purpose to destroy them. Let the children of the pilgrims blush, while the son of the forest drops a tear, and groans over the fate of his murdered and departed fathers. He would say to the sons of the pilgrims (as Job said about his birth day), let the day be dark, the 22^nd of December 1622; let it be forgotten in your celebration, in your speeches, and by the burying of the Rock that your fathers first put their foot upon. For be it remembered, although the gospel is said to be glad tidings for all people, yet we poor Indians have found those who brought it as messengers of mercy, but contrawise. We say, therefore, let every man of color wrap himself in mourning, for the 22^nd of December and the 4^th of July are days of mourning and not of joy. (I would here say, there is an error in my book; it speaks of the 25^th of December, but it should be the 22^nd. See Indian Nullification.) Let me rather fast and pray to the great Spirit, the Indian’s God, who deals out mercy to his red children, and not destruction.

Oh, Christians, can you answer for those beings that have been destroyed by your hostilities, and beings too that lies endeared to God as yourselves? His Son being the Saviour as well as yours, and alike to all men? And will you presume to say that you are executing the judgements of God by so doing, or as many really are approving the works of their fathers to be genuine, as it is certain that every time they celebrate the slaying of the pilgrims they do? Although in words they deny it, yet in works they approve of the iniquities of their fathers. And as the seed of iniquity and prejudice was sown in that day, so it still remains; and there is a deep rooted popular opinion in the hearts of many, that Indians were made, etc. on purpose for destruction, to be driven out by white Christians, and they to make their places; and that God had decreed it from all eternity. If such theologians would only study the works of nature more, they would understand the purpose of good better than they do. That the favor of the Almighty was good and holy, and all his nobler works were made to adorn his image, by being his grateful servants, and admiring each other as angels; and not as t hey say, to drive and devour each other. And that you may know the spirit of the pilgrims yet remain, we will present before you the words of a humble divine of the far West. He says, "the desert becomes an Eden." Rev. Nahum Gold, of Union Grove, Potman, writes under date June 12, 1835, says he, "let any man look at this settlement, and reflect what it was three years ago, and his heart can but kindle up while he exclaims, ‘what has God wrought!’ the savage has left the ground for civilized man; the rich prairie, from bringing forth all its strengths to be burned, is now God’s vineyard; he has gathered the vine, the choice vine, and brought it from a far country, and has planted it on a goodly soil. He expects fruit now. He gathered out the stones thereof, and drove the red Canaanites from trampling it down, or in any way hindering its increase." —N.Y. Evangelist, August 1.

But what next should we hear from this very pious man. Why, my brethren, the poor missionaries want money to go and convert the poor heathen, as if God could not convert them where they were; but must first drive them out. If God wants the red men converted, we should think he could do it as well in one place as in another. But I must say, and shall say it, that missionaries have injured us more than they have done us good, by degrading us as a people, in breaking up our governments, and leaving us without any suffrages whatever, or a legal right among men. Oh, what cursed doctrine is this, it most certainly is not fit to civilize men with, much more to save their souls; and we poor Indians want no such missionaries around us. But I would suggest one thing, and that is, let the ministers and people use the colored people they have already around them, like human beings, before they go to convert any more; and let them show it in their churches; and let them proclaim it upon the house tops, and I would day to the benevolent, withhold your hard earnings from them, unless hey do do it; until they can stop laying their own wickedness to God, which is blasphemy.

But if God was like his subjects, we should all have been swept off before now; for we find that of late, pilgrims’ children have got to killing and mobbing each other, as they have got rid of most all the Indians. This is worse than my countrymen ever did; for they never mobbed one another, and I was in hopes that the sons of the pilgrims had improved a little. But the more honorable may thank their fathers for such a spirit in this age. And remember that their wall of prejudice was built with untempered mortar, contrary to God’s command; and be assured, it will fall upon their children, though I sincerely hope they will not be seriously injured by it. Although I myself, now and then feel a little of its pressure, as though I should not be able to sustain the shock; but I trust the great Spirit will stand by me, as also good and honorable men will, being as it were the last, still lingering upon the shores of time, standing as it were upon the graves of his much injured race, to plead their cause, and speak for the rights of the remaining few. Although it is said by many, that Indians had no rights, neither do they regard their rights; nor can they look a white man in the face, and ask him for them. If the white man did but know itthe Indians know it would do no good to spend his breath for nought. But if we can trust to Roger Williams’ word, in regard to Indian rights; he says, no people were more so; that the cause of all their wars were about their hunting grounds. And it is certain their boundaries were set to their respective tribes; so that each one knew his own range. The poet speaks thus of Canonicus, 1n 1803:

It was said he was eighty-four years of age when he died, an able defender of his rights. Thus it does appear that Indians had rights, and those rights were near and dear to them, as your stores and farms, and firesides are to the whites, and their wives and children also. And how the pilgrims could rejoice at their distress, I know not; what divinity men were made of in those days, rather puzzles me now and then. Now, for example, we will lay before you the conduct of an Indian and the whites, and leave you, dear sirs, to judge.

History informs us that in Kennebunk there lived an Indian, remarkable for his good conduct, and who received a grant of land from the State, and fixed himself in a new township, where a number of white families were settled. Though not ill-treated, yet the common prejudices against Indians prevented any sympathy with him, though he himself did all that lay in his power to comfort his white neighbors, in case of sickness and death. But now let us see the scene reversed. The poor Indian, that had nourished , and waited to aid the pilgrims in their trouble, now vainly looks for help, when sickness and death comes into his family. Hear his own words. He speaks to the inhabitants thus: "When white man’s child die, Indian man be sorry; he help bury him. When my child die, no one speak to me; I make his grave alone. I can no live here." He gave up his farm, dug up the body of his child, and carried it 200 miles, through the wilderness, to join the Canadian Indians. What dignity there was in this man; and we do not wonder that he felt so indignant at the proceedings of the then called Christians. But this was as they were taught by their haughty divines and orators of the day. But, nevertheless, the people were to blame, for they might have read for themselves; and they doubtless would have found that they were not made to be vessels of wrath, as they say we were. And had the whites found it out, perhaps they would not have rejoiced at a poor Indian’s death; or when they were swept off, would not have called it the Lord killing the Indians to make room for them upon their lands. This is something like many people wishing for their friends to die, that they may get their property. I am astonished when I look at peoples’ absurd blindness — when all are liable to die, and all subject to all kinds of diseases. For example; why is it that epidemics have rages so much among the more civilized? In London, 1660, the plague; and in 1830 and 1831, the cholera, in the old and new world, when the inhabitants were lain in heaps by that epidemic. Should I hear of an Indian rejoicing over the inhabitants, I would no longer own him as a brother. But, dear friends, you know that no Indian knew by the Bible it was wrong to kill, because he knew not the Bible, and its sacred laws. Bit it is certain the pilgrims knew better than to break the commands of their Lord and Mater; they knew that it was written, "thou shalt not kill."

But having laid a mass of history and exposition before you, the purpose of which is to show that Philip and all the Indians generally, felt indignantly towards whites, whereby they were more easily allied together by Philip, their King and Emperor, we come to notice more particularly his history. As to his Majesty, King Philip, it was certain that his honor was put to the test, and it was certainly to be tried, even at the loss of his life and country. It is a matter of uncertainty about his age; but his birth-place was at Mount Hope, Rhode Island, where Massasoit, his fathter live, till 1656, and died, as also his brother, Alexander, by the governor’s ill treating him (that is, Winthrop) which caused his death, as before mentioned, in 1662; after which the kingdom fell into the hands of Philip, the greatest man that ever lived upon the American shores. Soon after coming to the throne, it appears he began to be notices, though, prior to this, it appears that he was not forward in the councils of war or peace. When he came into office, it appears that he knew there was great responsibility resting upon himself and country; that it was likely to be ruined by those rude intruders around him; though he appears friendly, and is willing to sell them lands for almost nothing, as we shall learn from dates of the Plymouth Colony, which commence on June 23, 1664. William Benton, of Rhode Island, a merchant, buys Matapoisett of Philip and wife, but no sum is set, which he gave for it. To this deed, his counsellors, and wife, and two of the pilgrims, were witnesses. In 1665, he sold New Bedford and Compton for forty dollars. In 1667 he sells to Constant Southworth and others all the meadow lands from Dartmouth to Matapoisett, for which he received sixty dollars. The same year he sells to Thomas Willet a tract of land two miles in length, and perhaps the same in width, for which he received forty dollars. In 1668 he sold a tract of some square miles, now called Swanzey. The next year, he sells five hundred acres in Swanzey, for which he received eighty dollars. His counsellors and interpreters, with the pilgrims, were witnesses to these deeds.

(Part three follows in my next column.)

SAME SHIT, DIFFERENT CENTURIES

For the first 26 years of my life, I lived in a small Rhode Island town, Tiverton. All around me were odd-sounding names of ponds, streets, schools, rivers, and other locations: Nonquit, Pocasset, Conanicus, Sakonnet, Narragansett, Watuppa and others. Occasionally, the name Metacomet was seen, usually as the name of a used car lot or bar.

To me, these names were merely those designated to the area. There were hints that they originated from the Native American language of the Wampanoag Indians, but no in-depth explanation was given. In my 12 years of school in the area, the only Native American history we learned consisted of the first Thanksgiving at Plymouth, Massachusetts, in which the Natives were portrayed as unkempt savages and the Pilgrims were depicted as very civilized.

A few years ago, I read a speech called "Eulogy on King Philip." It mesmerized me and upset me at the same time.

A Native American author, William Apes, of the Pequot tribe wrote the speech and delivered it in Boston in 1836 to a group of descendants of the original Pilgrims of 1620. It was about racism, deceit, slaughter and imperialism. King Philip was the Anglicized name of the Wampanoag chief, Metacomet.

I felt cheated with my education in the area when I realized that the first major resistance movement in the United States occurred right in my backyard. The conflict was called "King Philip’s War" and was fought in the years 1675 and 1676. Per combatant, it is the bloodiest war fought on U.S. soil. Metacomet won every battle, but when the Puritans were ready to return to England, the Natives ran out of food. In the end, the Wampanoag tribe, that had consisted of more than 30,000 people, was left with only 2,000 survivors. They were put into slavery. The tribe never rebounded and today consists of a few thousand, mostly impoverished, who inhabit southeastern Massachusetts.

One may think that "Eulogy on King Philip" is merely an historical account of the white man’s imperialism, but it is far more. Apes’ address in Boston was delivered in 1836 and he told of events that occurred from 1620 to 1676. But, his words are uncannily precise in describing the world today. One can change the dates and places and see an accurate view of today’s imperialistic aspirations of the U.S. with all the warts: racism, xenophobia, ethnocentrism, and Christian domination. Some events told by Apes are identical to those that occurred in the destruction of Iraq. Even the methods of demonizing and killing of adversaries are the same. For instance, Metacomet was betrayed by a Native. The Puritans paid an informant to find Metacomet’s location. He was killed in Bristol, Rhode Island and his body was dismembered. Metacomet’s body parts were displayed in various towns throughout southern New England. This was the white man’s way of displaying superiority.

In 2003, a distant family member of Saddam Hussein was paid by the U.S. military to disclose the whereabouts of Uday and Qusay Hussein. Several hundred "brave" U.S. soldiers loaded the house with thousands of rockets, missiles, bombs, mortars and bullets before they went in. The bodies of the Hussein brothers resembled the remnants of meat that had been put through a meat-grinder. Soon after, the U.S. showed the bodies to the world. This was the same method of showing superiority as the one used more than three centuries earlier.

This is the first of three parts of "Eulogy on King Philip. In my opinion, no finer piece has been written by anyone in describing the horrors of the imperialistic actions of a government. His words were uttered almost two centuries ago, yet they are precise today.

(Part One)

************

I do not rise to spread before you the fame of a noted warrior, whose natural abilities shown like those of the great and mighty Phillip of Greece, or Alexander the Great, or like those of Washington — whose virtues and patriotism are engraven on the hearts of my audience. Neither do I approve of war as being the best method of bowing the haughty tyrant, MAN, and civilizing the world. No, far from me be such a thought. But it is to bring before you beings, made by the God of Nature, and in whose hearts and heads he has planted sympathies that shall live forever in the memory of the world, whose brilliant talents shone in the display of natural things, so that the most cultivated, whose powers shone with equal lustre, were not able to prepare mantles to cover the burning elements of an uncivilized world. What, then, shall we cease to mention the mighty of the Earth, the noble work of God?

Yet those purer virtues remain untold. Those noble traits that marked the wild man’s course lie buried in the shades of night; and who shall stand? I appeal to the lovers of liberty. But those few remaining descendants who now remain as the monument of the cruelty to those who came to improve our race and correct our errors; and as the immortal Washington lives endeared and engraven on the hearts of every white in America, never to be forgotten in time — even such is the immortal Philip honored, as held in memory by the degraded, but yet grateful descendants, who appreciate his character; so will every patriot, especially in this enlightened age, respect the rude yet all-accomplished son of the forest, that died a martyr to his cause, though unsuccessful, yet as glorious as the American Revolution. Where, then, shall we place the hero of the wilderness?

Justice and humanity for the remaining few prompt me to vindicate the character of him who yet lives in their hearts, and, if possible, melt the prejudice that exists in the hearts of those who are in the possession of his soil, and only by the right of conquest — is the aim of him who proudly tells you, the blood of a denominated savage runs in his veins. It is, however, true, that there were many who are said to be honorable warriors, who, in the wisdom of civilized legislation, think it no crime to reek their vengeance upon whole nations and communities, until the fields are covered with blood, and the rivers turned into purple fountains, while groans, like distant thunder, are heard from the wounded, and the tens of thousands of the dying, leaving helpless families depending on their cares and sympathies for life; while a loud response is heard floating through the air from the ten thousand Indian children and orphans, who are left to mourn the honorable acts of a few — civilized men.

Now, if we have common sense and ability to allow the differences between the civilized world and the uncivilized, we cannot but see that one mode of warfare is as just as the other; for, while one is sanctioned by authority of the enlightened and cultivated men, the other is an agreement according to the pure laws of nature, growing out of natural consequences; for nature always has her defence for every beast of the field; even the reptiles of the earth and the fishes of the sea have their weapons of war. But though frail man was made for a nobler purpose — to live, to love and adore his God, and do good to his brother; for this reason, and this alone, the God of heaven prepared ways and means to blast anger, man’s destroyer, and cause the Prince of Peace to rule, that man might swell those blessed notes. My image is of God, I am not a beast.

But as all men are governed by animal passions who are void of the true principles of God, whether cultivated or uncultivated, we shall now lay before you the true character of Philip, in relation to those hostilities between himself and the whites, and in so doing permit me to be plain and candid.

The first inquiry is, Who is Philip? He was the descendant of one of the most celebrated chiefs in the known world, for peace and universal benevolence towards all men; for injuries upon injuries, and the most daring robberies and barbarous deeds of death that were ever committed by the American Pilgrims, were with patience and resignation borne, in a manner that would do justice to any Christian nation or being in the world — especially when we realize that it was voluntary suffering on the part of the good old chief. His country extensive — his men numerous, so as the wilderness was enlivened by them, say a thousand to one of the white men, and they, also, sick and feeble — where, then, shall we find one nation submitting to tamely to another, with such a host at their command? For injuries of much less magnitude have the people called Christians slain their brethren, till they could sing, like Sampson. With the jaw bone of an ass have we slain our thousands, and laid them in heaps. It will be well for us to lay those deeds and depredations committed by whites upon Indians, before the civilized world, and then they can judge for themselves.

It appears from history that in 1614, "There came one Henry Harley unto me, bringing with him a native of the island of Capawick, a place in the south of Cape Cod, whose name was Epenuel. This man was taken upon the main by force, with some twenty-nine others," very probably good old Massasoit’s men — see Harlow’s Voyage, 1611, "by a ship, and carried to London, and from thence to be sold for slaves among the Spaniards; but the Indians being too shrewd, or, as they say, unapt for their use, they refused to traffic in Indians’ blood and bones." This inhuman act of the whites caused the Indians to be jealous forever afterwards, which the white man acknowledges upon the first pages of the history of his country. (See Drake’s Hist. Of the Indians, page 7.)

How inhuman it was in those wretches to come into a country where nature shown in beauty, spreading her wings over the vast continent, sheltering beneath her shades those natural sons of an Almighty Being, that shone in grandeur and lustre like stars of the first magnitude in the heavenly world; whose virtues far surpassed their more enlightened foes, notwithstanding their pretended seal for religion and virtue. How they could go to work to enslave a free people, and call it religion, is beyond the power of any imagination, and out-strips the revelation o God’s word. Oh, thou pretended hypocritical Christian, whoever thou art, to say it was the design of God, that we should murder and slay one another, because we have the power. Power was not given us to abuse each other, but a mere power delegated to us by the King of heaven, a weapon of defense against error and evil; and when abused, it will turn to our destruction. Mark, then, the history of nations throughout the world.

But notwithstanding the transgression of this power to destroy the Indians at their first discovery, yet it does appear that the Indians had a wish to be friendly. When the pilgrims came among them (Iyanough’s men), there appeared an old woman, breaking out in solemn lamentations, declaring one Capt. Hunt had carried off three of her children, and they would never return here. The pilgrims replied, that they were bad and wicked men, but they were going to do better, and would never injure them at all. And to pay the poor mother, gave her a few brass trinkets, to atone for her three sons, and appease her present feelings, a woman nearly one hundred years of age. Oh, white woman, what would you think, if some foreign nation, unknown to you, should come and carry away from you three lovely children, whom you had dandled on the knee, and at some future time you should behold them, and break forth in sorrow, with your heart broken, and merely ask, sirs, where are my little ones, and some one should reply, it was passion, great passion; what would you think of them? Should you not only think they were beings made more like rocks than men. Yet these same men came to these Indians for support, and acknowledge themselves, that no people could be used better than they were; that their treatment would do honor to any nation; that their provisions were in abundance; that they gave