Another World Is Possible
edited by Jee Kim, Jeremy Glick,
Subway and Elevated Press, 2001
FIVE PROPOSED NEW LAWS FOR THE POST - 9-11 CRISIS
1. To display an American flag in any
form, you must present proof of voter registration.
2. To wave an American flag in public,
you must be able to name at least one of the following
a. Your Senator b. Your Representative c. Your President ("George
Bush" does not count; ambiguous)
3. To be permitted to scream "Arabs
go home," you must list and correctly locate ten Arab homelands.
4. Priority for purchase of American flags
will be given to those whose ancestors lived on American soil
the longest. When all American Indians who wish to display the
red, white and blue are satisfied, other applicants will be accepted.
5. A call for war on any radio talk-show
will be construed as a public declaration of willingness to enlist
in the US Army: callers will have 24 hours to complete the paperwork.
INTERVIEW OF ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI
Le Nouvel Observateur, Jan 15-21, 1998
Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert
Gates, stated in his memoirs ("From the Shadows') that American
intelligence services began to aid the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan
6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were
the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore
played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official
version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahedeen began during 1980,
that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, Dec
24, 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is s6 completely
otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3,1979 that President Carter signed
the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro
Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, l wrote a note to the
president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this
aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention
by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement
of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them.
However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything
B: Regret what? That secret operation
was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians
into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that
the Soviets officially crossed the border, l wrote to President
Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its
Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry
on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought
about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet
Q: And neither do you regret having supported
the Islamic [intigrismej, having given arms and advice to future
B: What is most important to the history
of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire?
Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and
the end of the cold war?
SHOCKED AND HORRIFIED
Larry Mosqueda, Ph.D.
Like all Americans, on Tuesday, 911, I
was shocked and horrified to watch the WTC Twin Towers attacked
by hijacked planes and collapse, resulting in the deaths of perhaps
up to 10,000 innocent people.
I had not been that shocked and horrified
since January 16,1991, when then President Bush attacked Baghdad,
and the rest of Iraq and began killing 200,000 people during that
"war" (slaughter). This includes the infamous "highway
of death" in the last days of the slaughter when US pilots
literally shot in the back retreating Iraqi civilians and soldiers.
I continue to be horrified by the sanctions on Iraq, which have
resulted in the death of over 1,000,000 Iraqis, including over
500,000 children, about whom former Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright has stated, their deaths "are worth the cost."
Over the course of my life I have been
shocked and horrified by a variety of US governmental actions,
such as the US sponsored coup against democracy in Guatemala in
1954 which resulted in the deaths of over L20,000 Guatemalan peasants
by US installed dictatorships over the course of four decades.
Last Tuesday's events reminded me of the horror I felt when the
US overthrew the government of the Dominican Republic in 1965
and helped to murder 3,000 people. And it reminded me of the shock
I felt in 1973, when the US sponsored a coup in Chile against
the democratic government of Salvador Allende and helped to murder
another 30,000 people, including US citizens.
Last Tuesday's events reminded me of the
shock and horror I felt in 1965 when the US sponsored a coup in
Indonesia that resulted in the murder of over 800,000 people,
and the subsequent slaughter in 1975 of over 250,000 innocent
people in East Timor by the Indonesian regime, with the direct
complicity of President Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.
I was reminded of the shock and horror
I felt during the US sponsored terrorist contra war (the World
Court declared the US government a war criminal in 1984 for the
mining of the harbors) against Nicaragua in the 1980s which resulted
in the deaths of over 30,000 innocent people (or as the US government
used to call them before the term "collateral damage"
was invented-"soft targets").
I was reminded of being horrified by the
U. S. war against the people of El Salvador in the 1980s, which
resulted in the brutal deaths of over 80,000 people, or "soft
I was reminded of the shock and horror
I felt during the US sponsored terror war against the peoples
of southern Africa (especially Angola) that began in the 1970s
and continues to this day, and has resulted in the deaths and
mutilations of over 1,000,000. I was reminded of the shock and
horror I felt as the US invaded Panama over the Christmas season
of 1989 and killed over 8,000 in an attempt to capture George
H. Bush's CIA partner, now turned enemy, Manuel Noriega.
I was reminded of the horror I felt when
Iearned about how the Shah of Iran was installed in a US sponsored
brutal coup that resulted in the deaths of over 70,000 Iranians
from 1952-1979. And the continuing shock as l learned that the
Ayatollah Khomani, who overthrew the Shah in 1979, and who was
the US public enemy for the decade of the 1980s, was also on the
CIA payroll while he was in exile in Paris in the 1970s.
I was reminded of the shock and horror
that I felt as l learned about the how the US has "manufactured
consent" since 1948 for its support of Israel, to the exclusion
of virtually any rights for the Palestinians in their native lands
resulting in ever worsening day to-day conditions for the people
of Palestine. I was shocked as l learned about the hundreds of
towns and villages that were literally wiped off the face of the
earth in the early days of Israeli colonization. I was horrified
in 1982 as the villagers of Sabra and Shatila were massacred by
Israeli allies with direct Israeli complicity and direction. The
untold thousands who died on that day match the scene of horror
that we saw last Tuesday. But those scenes were not repeated over
and over again on the national media to inflame the American public.
The events and images of last Tuesday
have been appropriately compared to the horrific events and images
of Lebanon in the 1980s with resulted in the deaths of tens of
thousand of people, with no reference to the fact that the country
that inflicted the terror on Lebanon was Israel, with US backing.
I still continue to be shocked at how mainstream commentators
refer to "Israeli settlers" in the "occupied territories"
with no sense of irony as they report on who are the aggressors
in the region.
Of course, the largest and most shocking
war crime of the second half of the 20th century was the US assault
on Indochina from 19541975, especially Vietnam, where over 4,000,000
people were bombed, napalmed, crushed, shot and individually "hands
on" murdered in the "Phoenix Program" (this is
where Oliver North got his start). Many US Vietnam veterans were
also victimized by this war and had the best of intentions, but
the policy makers themselves knew the criminality of their actions
and policies as revealed in their own words in "The Pentagon
Papers," released by Daniel Ellsberg of the RAND Corporation.
In 1974 Ellsberg noted that our Presidents from Truman to Nixon
continually lied to the US public about the purpose and conduct
of the war. He has stated that, "It is a tribute to the American
people that our leaders perceived that they had to lie to us,
it is not a tribute to us that we were so easily misled."
I was continually shocked and horrified as the US attacked and
bombed with impunity the nation of Libya in the 1980s, including
killing the infant daughter of Khadafi. l was shocked as the US
bombed and invaded Grenada in 1983. I was horrified by US military
and CIA actions in Somalia, Haltl, Afghanistan, Sudan, Brazil,
Argentina, and Yugoslavia. The deaths in these actions ran into
the hundreds of thousands.
The above list is by no means complete
or comprehensive. It is merely a list that is easily accessible
and not unknown, especially to the economic and intellectual elites.
It has just been conveniently eliminated from the public discourse
and public consciousness. And for the most part, the analysis
that the US actions have resulted in the deaths of primarily civilians
(over 90%) is not unknown to these elites and policy makers. A
conservative number for those who have been killed by US terror
and military action since World War II is 8,000,000 people. Repeat-8,000,000
people. This does not include the wounded, the imprisoned, the
displaced, the refugees, etc. Martin Luther King, Jr. stated in
1967, during the Vietnam War, "My government is the world's
leading purveyor of violence." Shocking and horrifying.
Nothing that I have written is meant to
disparage or disrespect those who were victims and those who suffered
death or the loss of a loved one during this week's events. It
is not meant to justify" any action by those who bombed the
Twin Towers or the Pentagon. It is meant to put it in a context.
Ed Herman in his book The Real Terror
Network: Terrorism in Fact and Propaganda does not justify any
terrorism but points out that states often engage in "wholesale"
terror, while those whom governments define as "terrorist"
engage in "retail" terrorism. While qualitatively the
results are the same for the individual victims of terrorism,
there is a clear quantitative difference. And as Herman and others
point out, the seeds, the roots, of much of the "retail"
terror are in fact found in the "wholesale" terror of
states. Again this is not to justify, in any way, the actions
of last Tuesday, but to put them in a context and suggest an explanation...
The retail terror is that of desperate
and sometimes fanatical small groups and individuals who often
have legitimate grievances, but engage in individual criminal
and illegitimate activities; the wholesale terror is that of "rational"
educated men where the pain, suffering, and deaths of millions
of people are contemplated, planned, and too often, executed,
for the purpose of furthering a nebulous concept called the "national
interest." Space does not allow a full explanation of the
elites' Orwellian concept of the "national interest,"
but it can be summarized as the protection and expansion of hegemony
and an imperial empire.
The American public is being prepared
for war while being fed a continuous stream of shocking and horrific
repeated images of Tuesday's events, and heartfelt stories from
the survivors and the loved ones of those who lost family members.
These stories are real and should not be diminished. In fact,
those who lost family members can be considered a representative
sample of humanity of the 8,000,000 who have been lost previously.
If we multiply by 800-1000 times the amount of pain, angst, and
anger being currently felt by the American public, we might begin
to understand how much of the rest of the world feels as they
are continually victimized.
Some particularly poignant images are
the heart wrenching public stories that we are seeing and hearing
of family members with pictures and flyers searching for their
loved ones. These images are virtually the same as those of the
"Mothers of the Disappeared" who searched for their
(primarily) adult children in places such as Argentina, where
over 11,000 were "disappeared" in 19761982, again with
US approval. Just as the mothers of Argentina deserved our respect
and compassion, so do the relatives of those who are searching
for their relatives now. However we should not allow ourselves
to be manipulated by the media and US government into turning
real grief and anger into a national policy of wholesale terror
and genocide against innocent civilians in Asia and Africa. What
we are seeing in military terms is called "softening the
target." The target here is the American public and we are
being ideologically and emotionally prepared for the slaughter
that may commence soon...
Those affected, all of us, must do everything
in our power to prevent a wider war and even greater atrocity,
do everything possible to stop the genocide if it starts, and
hold those responsible for their potential war crimes during and
after the war. If there is a great war in 2001 and it is not catastrophic
(a real possibility), the crimes of that war will be revisited
upon the US over the next generation. That is not some kind of
religious prophecy or threat, it is merely a straightforward political
The American people may be a little fuzzy about where exactly
Afghanistan is, but the US government and Afghanistan are old
friends. In 1979, after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the
CIA and Pakistan's ISI (Inter Services Intelligence) launched
the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA. Their
purpose was to harness the energy of Afghan resistance to the
Soviets and expand it into a holy war, an Islamic jihad, which
would turn Muslim countries within the Soviet Union against the
communist regime and eventually destabilise it. When it began,
it was meant to be the Soviet Union's Vietnam. It turned out to
be much more than that. Over the years, through the ISI, the CIA
funded and recruited almost 100,000 radical mojahedin from 40
Islamic countries as soldiers for America's proxy war. The rank
and file of the mojahedin were unaware that their jihad was actually
being fought on behalf of Uncle Sam. (The irony is that America
was equally unaware that it was financing a future war against
itself.) In 1989, after being bloodied by 10 years of relentless
conflict, the Russians withdrew, leaving behind a civilisation
reduced to rubble. Civil war in Afghanistan raged on.
The jihad spread to Chechnya, Kosovo and
eventually to Kashmir. The CIA continued to pour in money and
military equipment, but the overheads had become immense, and
more money was needed. The mojahedin ordered farmers to plant
opium as a "revolutionary tax". The ISI set up hundreds
of heroin laboratories across Afghanistan. Within two years of
the ClA's arrival, the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderland had become
the biggest producer of heroin in the world, and the single biggest
source of the heroin on American streets. The annual profits,
said to be between $100 billion and $200 billion, were ploughed
back into training and arming militants. In 1995, the Taliban
- then a marginal sect of dangerous, hard-line fundamentalists
- fought its way to power in Afghanistan. It was funded by the
ISI, that old cohort of the CIA, and supported by many political
parties in Pakistan. The Taliban unleashed a regime of terror.
Its first victims were its own people, particularly women. It
closed down girls' schools, dismissed women from government jobs,
and enforced sharia laws under which women deemed to be "immoral"
are stoned to death, and widows guilty of being adulterous are
buried alive. Given the Taliban government's human rights track
record, it seems unlikely that it will in any way be intimidated
or swerved from its purpose by the prospect of war, or the threat
to the lives of its civilians. After all that has happened, can
there be anything more ironic than Russia and America joining
hands to re destroy Afghanistan?
BUSH'S WAR ON TERRORISM: WHO WILL PAY AND WHO WILL BENEFIT?
by William Hartung
In the first few days after the attacks
on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, President Bush had
already described them as acts of war, setting the stage for the
introduction of a new "war on terrorism." Congress quickly
approved a $40 billion emergency funding package, to be divided
equally between domestic reconstruction efforts and support for
federal agencies that will be engaged in the fight against terrorism.
Picking up on a theme that had been sounded
earlier by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, the President
asserted before a joint session of Congress on September 20th
that the administration's war on terrorism would be a multi-faceted,
long-term effort encompassing covert actions, military strikes,
diplomatic initiatives, and domestic security measures (underscored
by his creation of a Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Defense,
to be headed by Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge). The speech was
long on resolve and short on details on the costs and consequences
of this seemingly open-ended anti-terror campaign.
A BLANK CHECK FOR THE PENTAGON?
Although there has been considerable editorial
comment about the need to rethink US defense strategy in the wake
of the September 11th attacks, so far it appears to be business
as usual. An article in the September 17-23 issue of Defense News
indicates that roughly $12 billion of the $40 billion emergency
package is slated to go to the Pentagon, but it quotes a Pentagon
official as saying that the emergency funds "will have nothing
to do with rescue and emergency efforts." The official further
states that "This will have nothing to do with retaliation
in response to the Sept. 11 attacks. The funding will go to the
[military department's] wish lists for things that we'll have
several years from now." Budget analyst Christopher Hellman
of the Center for Defense Information has suggested that military
spending for the fiscal year starting October 1, 2001 could reach
$375 billion. Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz has intimated
that the emergency funds are just the down payment on a major
increase in Pentagon spending, and conservative analysts such
as Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute have suggested that
it is possible that Congress will now be willing to push the Pentagon
budget to $400 billion per year or more, a figure that was merely
a right-wing pipe dream just a few months ago.
This surge in Pentagon spending is good
news for major Pentagon contractors, who were among the few companies
that showed increases in their stock prices when the market reopened
after the September 11th attacks. Among the top gainers for the
week of September 17-21 were major military and space contractors
like Raytheon (+37%), L-3 Communications (+35.8%), EDO (+24.8%),
Alliant Tech Systems (+23.5%), and Northrop Grumman (+21.2%).
As James Dao of the New York Times noted, some companies are already
up on Capitol Hill pushing their wares in the wake of the September
11th attacks: "Many military contractors have been-hesitant
to talk publicly about their improved economic prospects. 'This
is such a gruesome way to make money,' a lobbyist said."
But other companies, like Continental Electronics, have begun
openly lobbying for new business, going so far as to call the
Pentagon directly. "We believe that our radio transmitters
would be desperately needed in places like Pakistan," said
John Uvodich, the company's president. "We are just trying
to let people in Washington know that we are here to assist."
A logical approach to retooling the Pentagon
would be to set some priorities, not just throw money at the problem
under the guise of fighting terrorism. Systems like the costly
F-22 fighter plane, the bulky Crusader artillery system, and the
administration's $8.3 billion missile defense program seem largely
irrelevant to dealing with low tech threats like the September
11th attacks. But as Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace notes, "tragically, some are using
the terrible tragedy to justify their existing programs, slapping
an 'anti-terrorism' label on missile defense and military budget
increases." Just as no one in the
Bush administration has adequately explained why the expect a
military response to terrorism to be effective, no one has indicated
why a $375 billion budget - comparable to what the US was spending
during the Cold War against an adversary with 4 million troops
and thousands of nuclear weapons - is not sufficient to fight
a series of terrorist networks whose membership is measured in
the thousands, not the millions.
BY THE WAY, ABOUT THAT MISSILE DEFENSE
Despite the fact that a number of informed
observers, including Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman
Joseph Biden of Delaware, have noted that the September 11th attacks
underscore the irrelevance of the Bush administration's costly
missile defense scheme to the most immediate threats to US security,
the program may receive a short-term boost in the environment
of "consensus" that now reigns on Capitol Hill. A few
days after the attacks, The New York Times reported that key Capitol
Hill Democrats did not want to appear to be partisan by picking
a fight on missile defense at this time. But as Tom Collina of
the Union of Concerned Scientists aptly noted, "There's a
real danger because of this crisis that the Democrats will give
up this fight, which would be a real shame." Armed Services
Committee Chairman Carl Levin agreed to hold off on an amendment
that would have limited the ability of the administration to undertake
tests or other actions that would violate the AntiBallistic Missile
Treaty. He promises to introduce the measure later as a standalone
In the mean time, Star Wars boosters are
using homey analogies to suggest that we need anti-terrorist measures
and missile defense, saying things like "just because the
burglar came in the front door last time doesn't mean you want
to leave the back door unlocked," or "just because you
have insurance against theft doesn't mean you shouldn't buy fire
insurance." These comparisons are way off the mark. Given
the extreme unlikelihood of a nuclear-armed state, much less a
terrorist group, launching a nuclear missile attack at the United
States, a more accurate analogy would be more like "Now that
your house has just burned down, maybe you should stop spending
all your money on insurance against being hit by an asteroid."
Hopefully the Capitol Hill moratorium
on criticizing missile defense will end soon, before additional
billions are poured into this dangerous and unworkable project.
And hopefully the current irresponsible attitude on Capitol Hill
of uncritically throwing money at the Pentagon in the wake of
the September 11th attack will be cast aside in favor of a vigorous
public debate about the best way to prevent terrorism.
A missile defense system - even if it
overcame the technical obstacles which have so far proved insurmountable,
after billions spent - would have done nothing to stop the September
11 attack. Nor would it do anything to stop any other conceivable
terrorist attack on the United States, none of which involve might
missile delivery systems. Opportunism and cynical manipulation
of tragedy are nothing new in Washington. But the proposals to
exploit the September 11 tragedy for narrow corporate aims mark
a new low. The United States is emerging from a national mourning
period. Now is the time to proceed with caution and care, as the
nation seeks to address legitimate security concerns (e.g., airport
security) and tend to victims of the attack. It is no time 8 to
rush through proposals on matters essentially unrelated to the
attack, especially damaging and foolhardy proposals that have
been unable to win popular or Congressional support when the public
has had a chance to consider them dispassionately, and on the
THE NEED FOR DISSENT
by George Monbiot
Bin Laden's presumed guilt appears to
rest on the supposition that he is the sort of man who would have
done it. But his culpability is irrelevant: his usefulness to
western governments lies in his power to terrify. When billions
of pounds of military spending are at stake, rogue states and
terrorist warlords become assets precisely because they are liabilities.
By using Bin Laden as an excuse for demanding new military spending,
weapons manufacturers in America and Britain have enhanced his
iconic status among the disgruntled. His influence, in other words,
has been nurtured by the very industry which claims to possess
the means of stamping him out. This is not the only way in which
the new terrorism crisis has been exacerbated by corporate power.
The lax airport security which enabled the hijackers to smuggle
weapons on to the planes was, for example, the result of corporate
lobbying against the stricter controls the government had proposed.
Now Tuesday's horror is being used by corporations to establish
the preconditions for an even deadlier brand of terror.
This week, while the world's collective
back is turned, Tony Blair intends to allow the mixed oxide plant
at Seliafield to start operating. The decision would have been
front-page news at any other time. Now it's likely to be all but
invisible. The plant's operation, long demanded by the nuclear
industry and resisted by almost everyone else, will lead to a
massive proliferation of plutonium, and a high probability that
some of it will find its way into the hands of terrorists. Like
Ariel Sharon, in other words, Blair is using the reeling world's
shock to pursue policies which would be unacceptable at any other
Civil liberties are suddenly negotiable.
The US seems prepared to lift its ban on extrajudicial executions
carried out abroad by its own agents. The CIA might be permitted
to employ human rights abusers once more, which will doubtless
mean training and funding a whole new generation of Bin Ladens.
The British government is considering the introduction of identity
cards. Radical dissenters in Britain have already been identified
as terrorists by the Terrorism Act 2000. Now we're likely to be
treated as such. The authoritarianism which has long been lurking
in advanced capitalism has started to surface.
The governments of Britain and America
are using the disaster in New York to reinforce the very policies
which have helped to cause the problem: building up the power
of the defense industry, preparing to launch campaigns of the
kind which inevitably kill civilians, licensing covert action.
Corporations are securing new resources to invest in instability.
Racists are attacking Arabs and Muslims and blaming liberal asylum
policies for terrorism. As a result of the horror on Tuesday,
the right in all its forms is flourishing, and we are shrinking.
But we must not be cowed. Dissent is most necessary just when
it is hardest to voice.
(Reprinted with permission from The Guardian)
BUSH'S ORWELLIAN ADDRESS HAPPY NEW YEAR: IT'S 1984
by Jacob Levich
Seventeen years later than expected, 1984
In his address to Congress Thursday, George
Bush effectively declared permanent war - war without temporal
or geographic limits; war without clear goals; war against a vaguely
defined and constantly shifting enemy. Today it's Al-Qaida; tomorrow
it may be Afghanistan; next year, it could be Iraq or Cuba or
No one who was forced to read 1984 in
high school could fail to hear a faint bell tinkling. In George
Orwell's dreary classic, the totalitarian state of Oceania is
perpetually at war with either Eurasia or Eastasia. Although the
enemy changes periodically, the war is permanent; its true purpose
is to control dissent and sustain dictatorship by nurturing popular
fear and hatred.
The permanent war undergirds every aspect
of Big Brother's authoritarian program, excusing censorship, propaganda,
secret police, and privation. In other words, it's terribly convenient.
And conveniently terrible. Bush's alarming
speech pointed to a shadowy enemy that lurks in more than 60 countries,
including the US. He announced a policy of using maximum force
against any individuals or nations he designates as our enemies,
without color of international law, due process, or democratic
He explicitly warned that much of the
war will be conducted in secret. He rejected negotiation as a
tool of diplomacy. He announced starkly that any country that
doesn't knuckle under to US demands will be regarded as an enemy.
He heralded the creation of a powerful new cabinet-level police
agency called the "Office of Homeland Security." Orwell
couldn't have named it better.
By turns folksy ("Ya know what?)
and chillingly bellicose ("Either you are with us, or you
are with the terrorists"), Bush stepped comfortably into
the role of Big Brother, who needs to be loved as well as feared.
Meanwhile, his administration acted swiftly to realize the governing
principles of Oceania:
WAR IS PEACE. A reckless war that will
likely bring about a deadly cycle of retaliation is being sold
to us as the means to guarantee our safety. Meanwhile, we've been
instructed to accept the permanent war as a fact of daily life.
As the inevitable slaughter of innocents unfolds overseas, we
are to "live our lives and hug our children."
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. "Freedom itself
is under attack." Bush said, and he's right. Americans are
about to lose many of their most cherished liberties in a frenzy
of paranoid legislation. The government proposes to tap our phones,
read our email and seize our credit card records without court
order. It seeks authority to detain and deport immigrants without
cause or trial. It proposes to use foreign agents to spy on American
citizens. To save freedom, the warmongers intend to destroy it.
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. America's "new
war" against terrorism will be fought with unprecedented
secrecy, including heavy press restrictions not seen for years,
the Pentagon has advised. Meanwhile, the sorry history of American
imperialism - collaboration with terrorists, bloody proxy wars
against civilians, forcible replacement of democratic governments
with corrupt dictatorships - is treated as strictly off-limits
by mainstream media. Lest it weaken our resolve, we are not to
be allowed to understand the reasons underlying the horrifying
crimes of September 11.
The defining speech of Bush's presidency
points toward an Orwellian future of endless war, expedient lies,
and ubiquitous social control. But unlike 1984's doomed protagonist,
we've got still got plenty of space to maneuver and plenty of
ways to resist.
It's time to speak and to act. It falls
on us now to take to the streets, bearing a clear message for
the warmongers: We don't love Big Brother.
Originally published through the Common
Dreams News Center (http://www.commondreams.org)