Thru Other Eyes

Geert Wilders Bedankt!

Thank you Geert Wilders? Yes, thank you Geert Wilders. Fitna and Geert Wilders’ performance during the parliamentary debate that followed the video's release have indeed shown us that we stand on the precipice of a monumental decision. Unfortunately for Geert, it’s not quite the decision he was hoping for.

Wilders’ Youtube video Fitna (to call it a film would give it way too much credit) has stirred a lot of debate and controversy both in the Netherlands and abroad. The reactions to the video can be grouped into four broad areas:

Five Years Iraq

For me today, the only appropriate way to pause on the fifth anniversary, this fifth memorial for the war in Iraq is to have my thoughts with all those who have lost and given their lives in this war. So many lives and so many futures lost; it is a heavy burden we bear.

As I look at all the events around us today: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, other trouble spots where war is waging, the elections in the USA, I think about our individual responsibility as citizens of democracies. Especially the responsibility we create when we send boys and girls, men and women, off to die and to kill.

Death of darkness, death of night,
Let me feel the warmth of your blinding light.
Heroes one, Heroes all.
They felt the haunting of Gabriel’s call.

You couldn't have died for sins unknown.
Perhaps for a sin I must call my own?
Why did we send you, did we do what’s right?
Whose war was this you left to fight?

Forgive me my brother, my mother, my father,
Forgive me my lover, my sister, my daughter and son,
Forgive me my silence, the love that I squandered,
I hold onto your pain, for I’ve let you down.

~ Thru Other Eyes

The Madness of King George

Over the last weeks we have been treated to the spectacle of a President who is increasingly out of touch with reality and for whatever reason is less and less inhibited about showing it.

 

First we had George as the dancing bear outside the Oval Office as he waited to endorse John McCain.

Last Friday, we had the President telling the Economic Club of New York, "I'm coming to you as an optimistic fellow," exactly at the time that Bear Stearns' stock price was nose-diving and behind the scenes efforts were underway for JP Morgan to buy the once venerable bank for 7 cents on the dollar in an effort to stave off further bank collapses. Not since the 1930's had such a government guaranteed deal been necessary; but George was optimistic.

The most insightful and revolting look into Bush's emotional and intellectual state came on Thursday in a videoconference the President held with American military reconstruction teams in Afghanistan. 

RIP Benazir Bhutto

My condolences to the family of Ms. Bhutto, to the families of those killed and injured in both attacks today and to all of Pakistan. This can herald in nothing good in a country already struggling for its soul.

As I watch the news right now I get a very uneasy feeling of apprehension in the pit of my stomach. Pakistan was already on the verge of imploding. We have never adequately realized how important it was to embrace and encourage true democratic forces in Pakistan.

If the so-called 'war on terror' has anything to do with an ideological struggle between the ideals of democracy versus the insanity of extremist terror then Pakistan is ground zero when it comes to the competition between those two forces within Muslim society.

It is impossible to predict what types of forces and dynamics her assassination could unleash. I pray for cool heads and may leaders everywhere be granted the wisdom to deal with this tragic situation.

Where alternatives lie? Look within

NOTE: The service that issues my email updates has apparently malfunctioned and issued an email as if this article was newly (re)published. My excuses for the inconvenience as I do not want you to feel that I am 'spamming' your email address with old articles. I have asked the supplier to look into this problem as it has occurred a few times in the past. Thank you for your understanding. Lennybruce

A few days ago in Haaretz's (Israeli newspaper) forum there was a lively discussion about Israel's consideration to make Gazans pay for Quassam rocket attacks on Israel by shutting off Gaza's water and electricity. I was one of a few readers who made some comments about the appropriateness and legality of collective punishment of civilians. I identified myself as an Israeli veteran living in Amsterdam. Several readers posted angry and insulting reactions to my comments claiming that I could be neither Jewish nor Israeli; that I was a fraud and liar if I could have such thoughts. I took the unusual step of posting my weblog's address where anyone could see that I indeed was Jewish and an Israeli veteran. Several people found their way here and one person left behind the following comment on one of my articles about my experiences in Lebanon:

Hi there,
Came a cross of your post on Haaretz Talkback where you invited people to check if you were an Israeli. I took it as invitation and read your piece on Lebanon war. So what in your opinion should have been done differently? Do you think there should have been no invasion? All the thoughts that visited you and that you described (very well I should say) are not new. About stupidity and irrationality of war there are hundreds of books written for at least one century. I am sure you have read “Farewell to Arms”. There is another one that I like “THE GOOD SOLDIER SVEJK AND HIS FORTUNES IN THE WORLD WAR.” by Jaroslav Hasek. They both show the concept of stupidity and immorality of the war very well but they do not show the alternative. By the way what in your opinion should have been done last summer?

Ilya

This comment challenged me to write the following:

Alice in Wonderland – Down the rabbit hole and through the looking glass with President George Bush leading the way

America is in trouble. American democracy is in trouble. The country is being led by two men who have proven themselves to be totally unfit for their positions of responsibility and leadership. To the extent that their policies have had any benefit, either by circumstance or design, only a very small group of mainly privileged Americans have any reason to be happy with 7 years of Bush-Cheney. These two men have disappointed and betrayed the public trust in so many varied and serious ways.

If you were to take a look at

Two, four, six, eight, let’s go obfuscate

Obfuscate: To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand
Synonyms:  camouflage, disguise, cloud, obscure

(click image to view full size)

I have always been disgusted by the term collateral damage especially when it is applied to the destroyed lives of totally innocent men, women and children. It is how we sterilize and de-humanize the horror of war. It is how we insulate ourselves from the gruesome consequences of the actions we actively support or facilitate by our inaction. It’s a word that soothes our individual and collective conscience and allows us to sleep at night. It’s how we replace the guiltless yet bloodied and mangled face of innocent death with a false mask of acceptability. It’s the sugar that helps the disgusting medicine of war go down.

In both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars

TOE's Take on the Week

Here's a few of the things that grabbed my attention this week. What grabbed your's?

Olmert to Palestinians – NYET NYET NYET

The new unity Palestinian government is just a couple days old and Israel’s Prime Minister Olmert has made his government’s policy clear – NYET NYET NYET. It’s an odd policy. It was Moshe Dayan who said, “If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.”  And that is indeed the way many conflicts are resolved.

If I remember correctly, the United States was negotiating with North Vietnam while the war in Vietnam was still raging and both enemies were actively pursuing their right to destroy the other militarily. At the time none of the nations involved recognized their adversary and the outcome of the talks was anything but certain. If I am not mistaken, negotiations in Northern Ireland were for a very long time about the issue of the IRA giving up its armed struggle and not conditional on it. And as much as America wanted all kinds of pre-conditions in talks with North Korea,

Will the Real Mr. Peanut Please Stand Up? Part II

As we have seen, both Bush and Ahmadinejad are devout religious fundamentalists who seem to be in some measure directed by their beliefs of what their respective Gods desire of them. But there are some interesting differences in how they exercise power.

Ahmadinejad does not have the absolute last word in his country. He is subject to the checks and balances inherent in the Iranian form of theocracy. In the first instance you have the Supreme Leader who does not hesitate to put Ahmadinejad in his place when necessary, for example just recently concerning the President’s shortcomings on economic policy. Ahmadinejad is also subject to the whims of the voters as recently demonstrated by the strong rebuke  his domestic policies received in his first mid-term. And it is no secret that large portions of the Iranian public are dissatisfied with Ahmadinejad’s unfulfilled promises to attack domestic problems. And in fact, several months ago a motion of impeachment was even introduced in the Iranian parliament.

Bush on the other hand

Will the Real Mr. Peanut Please Stand Up? Part I

When I think about Bush and Ahmadinejad I usually get two varying images in my head. Sometimes I see them as two nuts, two peanuts, two Mr. Peanuts if you will and sometimes I see Bush and Ahmadinejad as two peas in a pod. Since both the peanut and the pea are actually in the same family, I guess I could just think of them as two whacky and wild pea nuts.

But seriously, whatever image these two guys conjure up in your head, one reason why they have developed into such arch rivals, with an enmity that has become palpably personal, lies partially in the fact that they are actually quite similar. And maybe that’s why they just can’t seem to get along.

Both men are motivated by their deep religious convictions. As is well known,

The Narrative of Iraq

The most recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) from America’s sixteen intelligence agencies paints a bleak picture of the current situation in Iraq. The picture it sketches for the document’s future time horizon, 12 to 18 months, also provides little comfort. This current NIE contains almost every tragic narrative of today’s Iraq: the inability to establish any meaningful central governmental and security authority; the growing polarization, mistrust and antagonism between Iraq’s sectarian communities with its resulting violence, population shifts and middle and upper class emigration; the deepening and sharpening Shia – Sunni split in the broader Middle East.

Although each of these merits attention in its own right, these are stories that we are already too familiar with. There is one narrative in this NIE, that although not entirely new for many, has never been publicly recognized by the US administration. This narrative is a bleak one and is told in one sentence:

“Nevertheless, even if violence is diminished, given the current winner-take-all attitude and sectarian animosities infecting the political scene, Iraqi leaders will be hard pressed to achieve sustained political reconciliation in the time frame of this Estimate.”

When the President’s National Security Advisor,

America, for all you do, this Bud's for you!

Last Friday was a memorable day for two reasons: the release of the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq and the UN’s report on climate change.

The NIE painted a stark picture of the mess America has created in Iraq and in no uncertain terms made clear how small the chances for success are within the report’s time frame of 12 – 18 months.

The UN report on climate change was also not so heartening, telling us that, “Global warming is so severe that it will "continue for centuries, leading to a far different planet in 100 years…"”

America seems to support the report publicly, saying for example, “We think it's a very valuable report. The conclusions are significant…the US was an important participant in the development of this report.” However,

FOX TV's "24" - The New Fear Factor? Part II

So, why is there such a fuss about “24” and can we put the discussions in a fruitful context for discussion? Think back to the last time when the USA was gripped by fear to the extent the country is today gripped by fear. After WWII, the USA became obsessed by the fear of communists and of nuclear war. And in that period, Hollywood was very active in capitalizing on that fear.

Writing about Hollywood’s fifty or so films of the Cold War, author and film critic Nora Sayre  wrote that cold war films

"…were aimed at an uninformed audience in a decade when almost anything that middle America feared could be related to Communism."

In reviewing one of that era’s most notorious anti-communist films, “Big Jim McLain” starring and produced by big John Wayne, 

FOX TV's "24" - The New Fear Factor? Part I

A few nights ago in a sleepless fit after some clubbing, I was doing some late night channel zapping and came across CNN’s "Larry King Live" (we get it at 3 AM). I saw the cast of Fox’s 24 and heard Larry say, “…Two hours Sunday, two hours Monday, a sensational beginning, by the way. Conservative commentator Laura Ingraham has said "24" is as close to a national referendum on torture as we're going to get. And because people embrace this show, it means they support using torture against terrorists.”

My first thought was, “Huh, he’s talking about just a TV show, right?” Boy, was I wrong. The next morning I fired up the ole laptop, snooped around a bit and discovered that the new season of “24” has caused quite a stir. For those few who may not know, a few details about this season: the villains this year are Islamic terrorists on a suicide bombing spree in American cities, the fourth hour ended with a nuclear explosion in downtown Los Angeles and later in the season American Muslims will apparently be rounded up and placed in internment camps.

It seems that the show has become the subject of

A Madman's Folly

President Bush’s new Iraq policy is one of two things. It could be the latest mistake in a long line of strategic disasters resulting from a rigid and intellectual neo-con vision of Iraq that remains divorced from any reality. Or it could be Bush’s best attempt to get of Iraq as unscathed as possible. Not to get America out of Iraq as unscathed as possible but to get himself out of Iraq and to do it regardless of his four years of lofty rhetoric about bringing democracy to Iraq and the broader Middle East.

If you think about this new strategy the almost inevitable conclusion is that Bush is trying to achieve the second. Although the plan is heralded as a new strategy it is of course not new at all. Last summer, Bush introduced a new strategy, Operation Together Forward, geared towards securing Baghdad.

The first version of that plan was put forth in June and by the end of July, Malaki was on his way to Washington to discuss a new plan as the Administration admitted publicly that the operation had been a failure and that a new strategy was needed in Baghdad.

On August 1, the administration announced Operation Together Forward version 2 which involved increasing the number of American forces in Baghdad. By October, the army admitted, “Operation Together Forward has made a difference in the focus areas but has not met our overall expectations of sustaining a reduction in the levels of violence.”

As the New York Times recently put it:

The Slippery Slope of Eroding Freedoms

I still find it ironic that while the US administration paints the ‘war on terror’ in the broad strokes of defending our ‘way of life’ against ‘Islamofascists’ who want to destroy our freedoms, they also use that war to seriously curtail the privacy and civil rights that are the very hallmarks of our ‘way our life.’

And I still find it amazing that the American public acquiesces with so little questioning. It began with the Patriot Act immediately after 9-11 of course. In the shock of those events it may be understandable that the Patriot Act received so much traction. When it was up for renewal there was a moment of soul-searching and resistance that nonetheless yielded to Patriot Act II. And of course, not so long ago, there was the mother of all civil rights limiting acts in the guise of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Given the short attention span of the public, these issues have come and gone. The very freedoms we are supposedly fighting to preserve have been slowly eroded and no one seems to care. This week we received two new reminders of how these changes have fundamentally altered our perceptions of our own democracy and the rights that inspire it.

The Decider decides... to wait

Yes the Decider has decided... to wait. The lack of urgency and the stalling is perhaps geared towards totally letting the ISG report fade from memory, or stems from a genuine blank regarding how to proceed or whom to listen to. Most likely it's a combination of those factors.

The ISG report shocked America with its candid and frightening assessment of the situation in Iraq. It created a sense of urgency that the President has worked hard to disarm. A full week after the report’s publication and polite reception by the President, he let us know he wouldn’t be rushed as he deliberates a new strategy. As the country anxiously waited for leadership, hope against hope,

A genuinely 'new way' forward in Iraq

Since the release of the Baker-Hamilton report, the discussions have gotten faster and more furious while moving no closer to any bipartisan or international consensus. In fact, the ISG report has pretty much come and gone, already overtaken by dynamics on the ground, both in Iraq and in Washington. The discussions in Washington are perhaps now overshadowing the ISG but still suffer from the flaws that made the ISG a still-born baby.

What have we seen since the release of the ISG? Bush still talks about not leaving before the job is done. Democratic representative John Murtha still wants to disengage as soon as possible while the Republican leader of the House, John Boehner says, “We will not accomplish victory by setting arbitrary deadlines or negotiating with hostile governments.” Senator McCain called the ISG a recipe that will bring us closer to defeat while Iraq’s President Talabani has called the report dangerous and insulting to Iraq’s sovereignty.  Massoud Barzani, the president of the northern Iraqi Kurdistan region, accused the commission of trying to impose the "wrong solutions" on the Iraqi people.

The general with day-to-day command of US troops in Iraq wants more time and money to create Iraqi jobs but sees no need for more troops.  Pentagon planners on the other hand appear ready to recommend a major infusion of additional troops to quell the insurgency in Baghdad while Iraq’s national security advisor wants US troops to leave Baghdad.

These fundamental disagreements have more to do with competing visions of the desired end game than how to best achieve an agreed-to objective. Without a clear destination any single road can be either good or bad depending on your perspective or agenda. Until all the players agree where they want to go with Iraq, we can never have a fruitful discussion about the best way to get there.

What’s desperately needed is

Ghosts of Vietnam

Question: What's the difference between Iraq and Vietnam?
Answer: Bush had a plan to get out of Vietnam.

Bush’s trip to Vietnam provides a bizarre background to the troubles he faces, or rather created, in Iraq. For all the talk of the ‘thumping’ his administration got in the recent elections, the firing of Rumsfeld and talk of looking at Iraq with ‘fresh eyes,’ Bush and his administration still don’t get it.

Asked the inevitable questions regarding what lessons the experience in Vietnam offers for Iraq, Bush said, “We tend to want there to be instant success in the world, and the task in Iraq is going to take awhile… it's just going to take a long period of time for an ideology of freedom to overcome an ideology of hate. Yet, the world that we live in today is one where they want things to happen immediately.”

And then in perhaps the most puzzling comment possible in the context of Vietnam’s lessons for Iraq,

The Inside Story - A TOE Exclusive

Thru Other Eyes is proud to bring you the exclusive internet version of Neil Cavuto’s Saturday one-on-one with President Bush’s press secretary and former FOX News colleague Tony Snow.

"Thanks Tony for being here. This has been a tough week for the President. What’s his attitude?

The President said last night Neil, this week has been tough. Tough on the brave men and women serving over there, tough on their families, tough on the Iraqis and a real bitch in the polls. But the Iraqis are standing side by side with the coalition forces, fighting for freedom, democracy and the American way. Faster than a speeding bullet, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, fighting against those rogue elements which don’t want to see liberty take root in the Middle East.

After Pat's Birthday

Kevin Tillman joined the Army with his brother Pat in 2002, and they served together in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Pat Tillman gave up a flourishing NFL career to join the army with his brother. Pat was killed in Afghanistan on April 22, 2004. Kevin, who was discharged in 2005, has written a powerful, must-read document which can be found on www.thruthdig.com. A few excerpts follow below.

"It is Pat’s birthday on November 6, and elections are the day after. It gets me thinking about a conversation I had with Pat before we joined the military.  He spoke about the risks with signing the papers.  How once we committed, we were at the mercy of the American leadership and the American people.  How we could be thrown in a direction not of our volition.  How fighting as a soldier would leave us without a voice… until we get out. 

Who's Kidding Who

We’ve heard Bush say it so often that it really doesn’t need any source. He’s been saying it at least since June when the Senate debated and defeated an amendment to demand the start of a US troop withdrawal by the end of 2006. And he repeated it this week in an ABC interview with George Stephanopoulos. What he said was, "...America will stand with them [Iraq] as we work toward our shared goal: a free Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself." And when it comes to a strategy to achieve that goal, Bush hasn’t gotten much further than a very vague vision, "As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."

Both statements are actually ones that when taken at face value seem logical and acceptable. We have a goal and we have a vision of sorts. The only problem is that the situation on the ground is getting continuously worse instead of better. And the ad naseum repetition of these two phrases doesn’t seem to be having any impact; not on the developments in Iraq and nor on the faith in Bush’s policy or his leadership.

If Only Time Travel Was Possible

As America heads to her mid-term elections on November 7, the discussions regarding the course of the war in Iraq in particular and the ‘war on terror’ in general are pretty much stealing the show. A good time for everyone to not only be defending his or her position, but hopefully also listening to and considering other points of views. I realize that is a lot of to ask of politicians.

A good moment then for a Q & A with some interesting folks from the past. I invited some noteworthy statesmen, philosophers, politicians and respected experts in various fields.

I brought up some of the hottest issues, gave my guests a little background (some of them haven't been around for quite awhile) and asked, “What advice, if any, would you give us?” Let’s see what they had to say.

Issue of Torture

Here was something revealed by the American Civil Liberties Union already way back in 2004:
Newly Obtained FBI Records Call Defense Department's Methods "Torture," Express Concerns Over "Cover-Up" That May Leave FBI "Holding the Bag" for Abuses

And from the Boston Globe, earlier in the year:
When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.

Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, a former Roman emperor and philosopher, got the ball rolling

The best way of avenging thyself is not to become like the wrong-doer.

Goodbye Dear Friend Revisited

After posting the original version of this video, I received some constructive criticism from 2 people in particular. Both felt that my visual reference to Bush as Hitler was unneccessary, and perhaps even distracted from my intended message. One of the criticisms came from a dear friend, who's late father, as a young man, barely stayed just one step ahead of the Nazi occupiers in Holland, moving from one underground hiding place to another. After the war, his father - Louis Velleman - became one of Holland's finest and most articulate international journalists.

So my discussion with him in particular, gave me pause to think about my choices in making this video, and about my choices in now revising it. Was I letting myself be pressured into self-censorship? Had I gone too far? What defines 'going to far?' Was I revising it to please someome or not to alienate some of my readers?

I originally made the Bush photo with the pencilled-in Hitler moustache to say three things: Bush is showing true anti-democratic fascist tendencies, that he is demonizing an ethnic group in order to further his own destructive domestic and international hegemonic agenda and if he is not stopped on this war path he is on, millions could conceivably die before his 'war on terror' is over, especially with the Iranian nuclear issue on the horizon. And in these regards, Bush shares some terrible characteristics with Hitler.

I do have to admit, that I was a bit uncomfortable with the visual myself and had I found an image of Bush where he recalled Mussolini then I would have gone with that. And, I understand that the evil Hitler represents is far beyond that which Bush embodies. Although there again, the question arises, is there legitimacy in distinguishing between evil and extremely evil? In the end, I am satisfied with the revision and find the new Bush visual just as strong in the context of this video's message about the Military Commissions Act.

Take a look and see what you think.

The original video you can see via this link.

By the way, you can see via this link a gripping theatrical representation of waterboarding, one of the torture methods employed by the CIA and endorsed by Bush. Interestingly enough, it comes from the film 'Jacob the Liar' and shows the character Jacob being waterboarded by... Nazis.

A Dark Day for America

“They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security” – Benjamin Franklin, 1759, later one of the signers of the US Constitution

“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” - Thomas Jefferson, 3rd pres USA and one of the signers of the US Constitution

Never before have I been as ashamed and disgusted to be an American as I am today. As America leads a struggle to supposedly spread the ideals of freedom and democracy around the globe it is ironic and frightening to witness the ease with which the US administration and the Congress, apparently with the support and blessings of many Americans, are vigorously curtailing those ideals at home.

Although I am confident that history will eventually judge the passing of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 as one of the darkest hours in American constitutional history, it seems certain that many people, most innocent, some guilty, will suffer greatly due to this law.

It is absolutely amazing how this law eliminates the ability and right, for any non-citizen deemed by Bush or the Department of Defense to be an unlawful enemy combatant to challenge one’s incarceration in a court of law.

Don’t forget that the inalienable right to know why one is being incarcerated and to challenge the justice of that incarceration

Media and democracy - What is Newsweek up to?

The ability of a democracy to flourish is, among other factors, directly related to the ability and willingness of citizens to inform themselves and the ability and willingness of a free press to do the informing. In our global and complex world, this task has become, on the one hand, ever more challenging. One the other hand, thanks primarily to Internet, the possible sources and variety of information has never been greater.

As the important mid-term elections approach in the USA, the 'war on terror' has become the key issue. As republicans fight to retain their majorities in both houses of Congress and as the President struggles to maintain his stranglehold on his terrorism policy, the battle of information, mis-information and manipulation is reaching new heights.

One of the key and controversial issues in the debate on how the 'war on terror' is progressing is the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan. Is the West losing its grip there? Was Bush's decision to invade Iraq a dangerous and counter-productive detour or not? Are we losing ground in Afghanistan because attention and resources were misdirected to Iraq? All of these are extremely vital questions. The answers that people give to these questions will help determine how they vote in the upcoming mid-terms.

So it was very logical that Newsweek, one of America's two important weekly news magazines, devoted its feature article to Afghanistan. The cover, 'Losing Afghanistan' ties to the feature article, "The Rise of Jihadistan - Five years after the Afghan invasion, the Taliban are fighting back hard, carving out a sanctuary where they — and Al Qaeda's leaders — can operate freely." This is clearly an honest, legitimate, valuable and thought-provoking challenge to current policy in the 'war on terror.'

However, Newsweek did an extremely strange thing. While the rest of the world was confronted with Afghanistan, Americans were treated to something totaly different. The US edition of Newsweek ran with the cover, "My Life in Pictures," and related feature article, "Through Her Lens: In her new book, Annie Leibovitz, our most famous photographer, places celebs side by side with surprisingly personal images of love and loss. An exclusive."

At a time when Americans need to make tough decisions with enduring global impact about which vision of the 'war on terror' will prevail - that of Bush or that of his Democratic opponents - Newsweek's editorial board vacated their journalistic responsibility and decided to treat its American readers to a feel-good, nostalgic piece about a well-loved American celebrity photographer.

The role that the mainstream media plays as the key conduit of information for most people will continue to be a subject of much debate and analysis. I won't guess at what motivated Newsweek to make this strange editorial decision. For now, I only pose the question, "Who stands to benefit?" The answer to that question could lead to 'why' Newsweek did this.

The real danger is in Washington politics

It seems to me that the greatest risk we face at the moment in the ‘war on terror’ is the utterly divisive and shameful way the issue is being discussed in America’s midterm elections. It is sad and ironic that as everyone has been focused on remembering the dead and the many sacrifices that were made on 9-11, the tenor and contents of the political debate about how to proceed in this ‘war’ have themselves become a source of danger.

If we are suffering such a dire threat as the US administration is telling us (and I am willing to accept that for the moment for argument’s sake), then American politicians, with the Republicans in the lead, are being what can only be called totally irresponsible and downright negligent given the style of politics they are pursuing at this crucial moment in history.

Let’s take a look at the facts on the ground five years on.

We Will Remember

We remember the nearly 3000 innocent souls who were killed on 9 11
We will not forget.

We remember the courage of the men and women of the emergency services.
We will not forget.

We remember the estimated 40,000 American people who are now sick and dying from the toxic wastes they were exposed to at ground zero, while their government insisted there was no danger and is slow to come to their aid.
We will not forget.

We remember the tens of thousands of men and women in uniform who have died or been injured since being sent to war by their governments.
We will not forget.

We remember the tens of thousands or more innocent souls who have been killed in Iraq and the untold numbers of those injured.
We will not forget.

We remember the political partisanship and manipulation, and the
half-truths and untruths that have been told by too many of our leaders.
We will not forget.

We remember the original world-wide solidarity with America after 9-11.
We will not forget.

We remember the heartbreaking loss of so many beautiful futures, the
loss of trust and faith and the loss of hope.
We will not forget.

WHEN TWO TRIBES GO TO WAR

You heard it here first! Bush's speech yesterday (see article below from 6 sept) apparently was inspired by one of King George's favorite music videos. In fact, rumours circulating on the Internet seem to indicate that he was taking notes while watching this video from 'Frankie Goes to Hollywood.' He is reported to have given the video to his speechwriters with a handwritten note, "Yeah, this is what I'm fucking talking about." Art imitating life imitating art? Take a look, its about 4 and a half minutes, and then you will have the essence of the whole speech in case you missed it yesterday.

"When two tribes go to war, one is all that you can score. When two tribes go to war, one is all that you can score"

Bush may not have struck fear into Bin Laden’s heart but he sure struck fear into mine

Todays speech was nothing less than Bush's Declaration of War of Survival versus Islam.

As I watched his speech to the Military Officers Association of America many cowboy images and cliches went through my mind: ‘Texas showdown,’ ‘Shootout at the OK Coral,’ ‘Alamo's Last Stand,’ ‘This town ain’t big enough for the two of us.’

But then I realized that the speech was so serious and alarming that I would just say it right out, "Declaration of War of Survival versus the Islam."  Although he will claim that he was talking about the terrorists only, his use of quotes, lack of balance or nuance and virulent tonality will leave the uninitiated viewer with the feeling that it is Islam we need to fear. And I believe that is Bush's intention.

My guess is, that Bin Laden may find the frenzy he has let loose in Bush quite satisfying, and actually playing right into his hands. Maybe he got Bush right where he wants him: painting Islam in the unnuanced, frightening, threatening, extreme and hysterical monochromatic hues of extreme terror.

Nothing was held back, no stone left unturned in his effort to awaken every possible sinew of deep fear for this unknown phenomenon called Islam. And let's be homest, most people know very very little about Islam.

This speech is going to be 'Introduction to Islam' for most of his audience: an extreme, one-sided, intentionally unnuanced 'Introduction to Islam'. An 'Introduction to Islam' which will instill holy Christian-Judaic fear into Bush’s followers. And that may be exactly what he is striving for, in the best case because of upcoming elections and in the worst case because of some upcoming war of grand and apocalyptic proportions.

Bush uses half of his 5500 word speech

Iran 1 - The road from Beirut to Teheran

It’s no secret that just as one Middle East crisis is being contained between Lebanon and Israel, the next one, inter-related but also independent, is blossoming in Iran. I am quite frankly very frightened by the developing dynamics regarding this Iranian crisis. The world seems to be at a loss of how to deal with Iran, can find no consensus and demonstrates far too little subtle and insightful thinking into the complex Iranian mindset.

Oddly enough the inconclusive outcome of the war creates an opportunity in addressing the Iranian crisis according to this interesting op-ed piece in today's Beirut Daily Star, written by Habib Malik from the American University in Beirut. Malik does a good job of tracing the themes which start in Beirut and converge in Teheran. He stresses the importance of direct US-Iranian engagement in order to capitalize on this opportunity. This engagement theme is going to become subject of much debate in the coming months given Bush’s propensity for the ‘silent treatment’ as a foreign policy tool.

He opens his article with the Iranian theme:

Listen to this voice of Arab moderation

If you read yesterday’s essay ('America's Monologue'), you know I am not entirely convinced of America’s capacity to lead us through the crises in the Middle East. My advice is that “America should start seeking out and listening to other voices, especially Middle Eastern voices.” One voice that the West listened to and respected was that of the late King Hussein of Jordan. Although he is sorely missed in this hour of need, his brother, Prince Hassan bin Talal, is also a moderate and thoughtful man who always shared his brother’s genuine desire for peace.

Ha’aretz, one of Israel’s most influential newspapers, recently published a very interesting column from Prince Hassan. The Prince makes an eloquent plea to the West to listen more intently to her allies in the Middle East, writing in part,

Will Someone Interrupt America’s Monologue, Please

I probably read and watch too much news. I admit it. I probably read too many varying points of views on weblogs. I admit it. But today something struck me and I want to get it off my chest. Everyone will agree, I think, that the Middle East is a pretty scary place at the moment. The dynamics that are converging there could almost make one believe in any of the freely available versions of an apocalyptic Messianic end of days.

But something struck me today when I took a step back and looked at the entire picture (a cute aside, it happened while I was enjoying a kosher corned beef sandwich at Sal’s Lunchroom with one of my dear Dutch gentile friends). What I’m thinking, and I am afraid to say it, but the biggest hurdle in handling all these problems in the Middle East may be America’s unchallenged policy monologue on the world stage.

Let’s make up the balance for a moment. Iraq is either

Look deeper to the root causes

"The first step towards defeating the terrorists: stop blaming ourselves"

Something I posted on The Times discussion forum, in reaction to this article on the recent  airline plot in UK (11/8/06)

Mr Baker writes, in part, "...It is a neatly comprehensive schema of cynicism...the consistent theme is denial— denial of the reality of the mortal threat we face, denial of the reasons we face it....Success requires.... a commitment... to eradicate the deep global political causes that threaten us...." . Understanding the reasons we face this threat and how to eradicate it are indeed the key questions to which we need answers. But it is Mr Baker's denial which is the grave danger. To be sure, we must relentlessly pursue those who present acute threats. We must also relentlessly pursue those, individuals and states, who provide support. But by not acknowledging genuine historical roots to this problem, genuine grievances, and that our missteps continue to exacerbate the problem, then we will only be able to keep our heads above water, ever fearful of the one plan which slips under the radar. This is no solution and not recognizing that is true denial.

Bank Data, Terror and the Times

This letter of mine was published in the Saturday New York Times, June 24, 2006

"To the Editor:

I write as a United States citizen who is working abroad.

Regardless of which side of the political spectrum one is on, there has been an undeniable, fundamental and significant shift in the center of gravity regarding longstanding and long-treasured privacy-versus-security norms.

The revelation of large-scale secret sifting of bank transactions is the latest example and most likely not the last. Right or wrong, the fact that so many of these programs have been carried out in secret, without sufficient Congressional or judicial oversight, means that the slow but steady erosion of constitutional principles of privacy and protection against unlawful search and seizure is taking place without any broad debate.

If President Bush truly appreciated his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution to the same degree as his obligation to protect American citizens, he would respect the checks and balances in our system of three branches of government, as opposed to trampling on them."