Mother Jones: Bush's Environmental
Record
Another Great Link for Bush Record
- Rollback Reader
Climate Change Bill Voting This
Week!
Bah, Wilderness! Reopening a Frontier
to Development
One Million Citizens - One Goal:
Stop Global Warming
Bad News
A Welcome Shift!
Another Call on Energy Battle
Needed Now
Time to Call on Energy!
Shays - Meehan, Pickering Nomination
Shays-Meehan, Campaign Finance
Reform!
Bin Laden Revolution?
Energy Bill Alert from NRDC and
Redford
**RED ALERT -- CALL CONGRESS NOW
-- PILOT RANGE BILL FLOOR VOTE NEXT WEEK**
Afghan Eye-Opener
A Interesting Foreign Policy Commentary
The wickedness and awesome cruelty
of a crushed and humiliated people
Support from France
Bush Has Given Millions to the
Taliban
SB 1333, Renewable Energy and
Efficiency Act!
Tongass and National Forests Action
Alert!
The Energy Bill is Up Now!
Check out these Bush appointsments!
Meeting George Bush
Whales Seriously Threatened by
New SONAR
World Reactions to Bush's CO2
Policies
ANWR Update!
ANWR Under Assault -- And So It
Begins
Clean Air Under Attack by Bush
Overvotes Were Key After All
Last Chance to Stop Ashcroft
Full List of Senator's Numbers,
Ashcroft Update
A Supreme Court Chronicle
The Judiciary Committee's Contact
Information -- STOP ASHCROFT NOMINATION
A Few Choice Ashcroft Remarks
Worse Than Watt
The Secretary of the Interior
Matters!
Details
of the Case Against the Bogus Electoral Votes
Best Way to Contact Your Congressional
Representative Quickly
New Republican Voter Fraud Found
in Florida
The Texas Electoral Votes Are
Also Invalid
An Open Letter To Congress from
Alan Hale
Electoral Disaster Revealed, Reform
Needed
Precinct Analysis Finds Stark
Inequity in Polling Problems
Partisanship Rules
Making Every Vote Count
Ashcroft Disaster, Need to Fight
Senators Should Fight for Middle
Ground and Block Ashcroft
Right-Wing Coup That Shames America
'Machine' Politician Exposed By
Photos
How Bush and His Campaigners Trust
the People
Ballot Spoilage Likelier For American-Africans
A LAYMAN'S GUIDE TO THE SUPREME
COURT DECISION IN BUSH V. GORE
=====================================================+
Date: Wednesday, August 27,
2003 9:44 AM
Mother Jones: Bush's Environmental Record
Here are four pretty spectacular articles on the horrors of
the
lesser Bush (plus a great list of scary statistics):
http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2003/35/we_531_01.html
The worst environmental assault in history by far, it seems
to me.
Who would have thought that there could be a man crazier than
Ronald Reagan.
I really think that we are on the verge of losing the county
(and a
huge chunk of the planet's future) entirely, as the right wingers
near completion of their plan to permanently dominate politics
in
America. The percentage of registered voters who are Republicans
vs.
Dems has increased steeply and is rapidly approaching a majority.
The media is half dead. The courts are closing in rapidly on
Nazi
majorities. The internet may be our last best weapon of communication.
Joe Holmes
=====================================================+
Date: Wednesday, August 27,
2003 9:52 AM
Another Great Link for Bush Record - Rollback Reader
Tom Paine has reprinted part of what Mother Jones put up,
plus they
have added a great set of links to several Bush record articles:
"Rollback Reader"
http://www.tompaine.com
=====================================================+
Date: Monday, July 28, 2003
3:40 PM
Climate Change Bill Voting This Week!
Dear Friends,
The U.S. Senate is going to vote on the McCain - Lieberman
Climate
Stewardship Act this week, probably Wednesday.
We need to call our Senators to ask them to vote for this
vital,
landmark environmental legislation. (Dianne Feinstein is already
a
co-sponsor, so she doesn't need to be called.)
Your senators' phone numbers can be found quickly here:
http://www.senate.gov/
and then use the "Find Your Senators" pop-up by state...
Environmental Defense is also attempting to reach one million
petition signatures in support of the Climate Stewardship Act.
If
you haven't already signed the petition, you can do so at:
http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/globalwarming_petition/
We have to get this effort passed! Please spread the word!
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/campaign/gw/index.cfm
is a link
to find out more about the situation in general.
Thank you!
Joe Holmes
Kensington, California
========================================================+
Date: Monday, May 5, 2003
10:58 AM
200 Million Acres of Potential Wilderness No More
All of Yosemite National Park, 1,100 square miles, or about
one per cent of the State of California in area, is equal to
3/4 of one million acres. So when you read about George Bush
taking 200 million acres of public land out of consideration
for wilderness designation, remember that he's talking about
areas totaling two and a half times the size of California, or
over 260 times the size of all of Yosemite. This is war.
Joe Holmes
==================+++
May 4, 2003
Bah, Wilderness! Reopening a Frontier to Development
By TIMOTHY EGAN
The New York Times
SEATTLE - More than a century after historians declared an
end to the American Frontier, the Interior Department made a
somewhat similar announcement last month, with no fanfare. On
a Friday night, just after Congress had left for spring break,
the government said it would no longer consider huge swaths of
public land to be wilderness.
The administration declared that it would end reviews of Western
landholdings for new wilderness protection. As long as the lands
had been under consideration for the American wilderness system,
they had temporary protection from development.
With a single order, the Bush administration removed more
than 200 million acres from further wilderness study, including
caribou stamping ground in Alaska, the red rock canyons and mesas
of southern Utah, Case Mountain with its sequoia forests in California
and a wall of rainbow-colored rock known as Vermillion Basin
in Colorado.
By declaring an end to wild land surveys, the administration
ruled out protection of these areas as formal wilderness - which,
by law, are supposed to be places people can visit but not stay.
Now, these areas, managed by the Bureau of Land Management, could
be opened to mining, drilling, logging or road-building.
The idea of designating an area as wilderness - wild land
left as is, for its own sake - is an American construct. Artists
and writers in the mid-19th century led the charge for wilderness,
with Henry David Thoreau arguing from his pond-side home in Concord,
Mass., that wilderness sanctuaries were a necessary complement
to civilization.
In setting aside the first wildlife refuge in 1903, on Pelican
Island in Florida, President Theodore Roosevelt protected a patch
of America that is now the smallest of the formally protected
lands - a mere five acres. And since passage of the Wilderness
Act of 1964, 106 million acres have been given the wild lands
designation, with more than half of that total in Alaska.
Over the years, the Bureau of Land Management, the nation's
biggest landlord, with 262 million acres under its control, has
continued to survey its vast holdings, trying to determine whether
more land is suitable for wilderness. But the Bush administration
says wilderness reviews should have ended 13 years ago, at the
close of a study period mandated by Congress. This interpretation
is challenged by conservationists who plan to appeal the Bush
order in court.
If the Friday night declaration represents the beginning of
a broad new land management policy, the Interior Department has
not said so. There was not even an announcement of the end of
the wilderness reviews on the department's Web site.
Instead, the change came about in a settlement of a 1996 lawsuit
filed by the State of Utah against the Interior Department over
a reinventory of three million acres conducted by Bruce Babbitt,
the interior secretary at the time. Most of the lawsuit had been
dismissed and sat dormant until the state amended its complaint
in March.
"This does not mean that someday down the road we may
still manage some of these lands as wilderness," said Patricia
Lynn Scarlett, an assistant interior secretary.
The move follows a consistent pattern in the president's environmental
policy: to change the way the land is managed, without changing
the law. Whether the issue is allowing snowmobiles in Yellowstone
National Park or logging in the Pacific Northwest, the course
has been to settle lawsuits by opponents of wild land protection,
opening up the areas to wide use, without going to Congress to
rewrite the rules.
Oil and gas developers and others point out that the Clinton
administration did the same thing - making broad changes of policy
by administrative order - but on behalf of an environmental constituency.
In their view, wilderness protection amounts to a land grab,
putting potential timber or mining areas off limits. They say
citizen groups were abusing the law by bringing land surveys
to the government, which then managed the land as de facto wilderness.
Leaders of some Western states have long complained that wilderness
study essentially eliminates the chance to gain any economic
value from the land, money that is needed for state coffers.
To many conservationists, the announcement was more than another
setback. Wilderness, in the oft-quoted line of the writer Wallace
Stegner, is "the geography of hope." To have that geography
capped, they argue, has had the same effect on some outdoor lovers
as the fencing of the public range had on open-country cattle
ranchers. "They are trying to declare, by fiat, that wilderness
does not exist," said Heidi McIntosh of the Southern Utah
Wilderness Alliance.
The interior secretary, Gale A. Norton, said that the policy
reflected the administration's attempt to cooperate with local
officials and heed concerns of industries that rely on public
lands' resources. "The Department of the Interior believes
that we should manage these lands in a way that provides the
greatest benefit to the public," Ms. Norton wrote in a letter
to Senator Robert F. Bennett, Republican of Utah.
In another letter, Ms. Norton said it seemed senseless to
consider declaring any more wilderness areas in Alaska because
its elected officials are against expanding this protection.
But critics say that in California, a majority of elected officials
favor more wilderness. And in New Mexico, Gov. Bill Richardson,
a Democrat, has asked the government to prevent drilling in 1.8
million acres of the Otero Mesa, an area that has all the qualities
of wilderness.
The New Mexico land is the largest contiguous piece of Chihuahuan
Desert grassland left in North America, Governor Richardson said.
It may be wild, but for now, it can no longer be Wilderness.
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
========================================================+
Date: Tuesday, April 22,
2003 6:34 PM
One Million Citizens - One Goal: Stop Global Warming
Have you heard about the Climate Stewardship Act?
It's a bipartisan bill in Congress to stop global warming.
This is a landmark bill, and our help is needed to get it passed.
Environmental Defense is calling for 1 million people
to sign an online Petition in support of this bill.
Please, do as I did and sign the Petition today. It's
easy to do, just use the link below: (thanks!)
http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/globalwarming_petition?rk=m7q-MNS1EcJTW
========================================================+
Date: Monday, August 12,
2002 1:32 PM
Subject: Bad News
Galen and Barbara Rowell were both killed yesterday at around
1:00 am
while on approach to the Bishop airport in a small, twin engine
turbo
plane flying them from the Oakland Airport to their current home
in
Bishop, along with the pilot and one other person. This was the
last
leg of the return trip from a long visit to the Bering Sea region.
http://www.395.com for a
downloadable Real audio file with details.
The plane was observed to have rolled 90 degrees and was falling.
The crash did not start a fire, but jet fuel was present.
I am so stunned. This was not their future.
Joe
===================+++
See also: http://www.mountainlight.com/
========================================================+
Date: Monday, June 10, 2002
2:35 PM
Subject: A Welcome Shift!
Here is a link to a wonderful story about advancing ethics
of the
Orthodox Church and apparently also the Roman Catholic Church
regarding destruction of the environment.
Here is a choice quote from the article:
For the past two years the organisers have been wondering
how to
involve Pope John Paul II in this crusade. The text to be signed
tomorrow is being kept secret, but the Orthodox Church has been
discussing whether it should include a joint declaration of the
sinfulness of degrading the environment. The Patriarch starkly
warned
the delegates - who include Richard Chartres, the Bishop of London
-
that "we witness death approaching on account of trespassing
against
limits that God placed on our proper use of creation".
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=303549
Joe Holmes
See my new web site at http://www.josephholmes.com
Use the side
arrows with the first large image for a straight through slide
show of 77 images.
========================================================+
Date: Tuesday, March 12,
2002 10:42 AM
Subject: Another Call on Energy Battle Needed Now
And one more time everybody.
Thanks for your help.
Joe Holmes
If you're outside of California, you can find your senator's
phone
numbers by visiting:
http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index.cfm
===============================+++
___________________
Dear friend of MoveOn,
Today, Tuesday, March 12th, 2002, the Senate is beginning
debate on
fuel economy for cars, SUVs, and small trucks. There's a very
bad bill
picking up a lot of support. The vote could come this afternoon
or
tomorrow morning. We urge you to call your Senators now to oppose
it, at:
Senator Barbara Boxer
DC Phone: 202-224-3553
DC Fax: 415-956-6701
Senator Dianne Feinstein
DC Phone: 202-224-3841
DC Fax: 202-228-3954
Make sure their staffers know you're a constituent. Then urge
them to:
"Please OPPOSE the Levin-Bond fuel economy bill."
Please let us know you're making these crucial calls, at:
http://www.moveon.org/callmade.html?id=472-472805-ipkEJ9QyuPYHLEg5huaO1Q
The Levin-Bond bill not only misses a key opportunity to make
a strong
increase in fuel economy - which would be the single biggest,
fastest
way to reduce our dependence on oil - it moves us backwards,
making it
harder for the US to improve car fuel economy over the next 13
years.
Many Senators seem to be on the brink of caving in to the
auto industry
on this. We've got to stop them if we can. Please call your Senators
*right now*.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
- Peter Schurman
Executive Director
MoveOn.org
March 12, 2002
========================================================+
Date: Wednesday, March 6,
2002 10:42 AM
Subject: Forward: Time to Call on Energy!
Hi everybody,
Today is the time to call your senators in support of the
sane energy
policy options now up for consideration in the Senate. This may
be
the most important environmental vote of the decade!
I don't know how many days until they vote.
If you're outside of California, you can find your senator's
phone
numbers by visiting:
http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index.cfm
Thanks!
Joe Holmes
==================================+++
Date: 6 Mar 2002 18:14:03 -0000
From: "Wes Boyd, MoveOn.Org"
Subject: Call NOW for sound energy policy
Dear friend of MoveOn,
The biggest environmental policy fight in a decade is now
nearing
its peak: the Senate has just begun its debate on energy policy.
Enron and other giant corporations have already forced a disastrous
energy bill through the House, with the support of the White
House.
The Senate is our _only_chance_ to stop them. Please call
BOTH your
Senators now at:
Senator Barbara Boxer
DC Phone: 202-224-3553
DC Fax: 415-956-6701
Local Phone: 415-403-0100
Senator Dianne Feinstein
DC Phone: 202-224-3841
DC Fax: 202-228-3954
Local Phone: 619-231-9712
Make sure their staffers know you're a constituent. Then urge
them to:
"Please support the Kerry-Hollings CAFE bill;
support the Jeffords Renewable Energy bill;
and _block_ oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge."
Please let us know you're making these vital calls, at:
http://www.moveon.org/callmade.html?id=464-472805-XTEqzo%2BTAWo7TwcRnfUddQ
We'd like to keep a count. Thank you.
The Kerry-Hollings "CAFE" bill would increase the
fuel economy of new
cars and light trucks to an average of 35 miles per gallon by
2013 (CAFE
stands for "Corporate Average Fuel Economy"). This
will save as much
oil as we import from Iraq and Kuwait combined. It's the single
biggest,
fastest step we can take to reduce our dependence on oil, a crucial
goal
for our national security, our economy, and our environment.
The Jeffords Renewable Energy bill will help move America
toward a
sustainable energy future, by requiring that 20% of our energy
be
generated from renewable sources by the year 2020.
Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is just plain
wrong.
The Refuge is the intact heart of the last great wilderness ecosystem
in North America. It contains only enough oil to last the United
States 6 months, and that would take 10 years to come online.
President
Bush, Vice President Cheney, and their friends in the energy
business
are determined to drill it. But once it's gone, it's gone forever.
Please make your calls now. This really is the biggest environmental
battle in a decade. Make sure your voice is heard.
Sincerely,
- Wes Boyd
MoveOn.org
March 6, 2000
========================================================+
Date: Wednesday, February
13, 2002 2:36 PM
Subject: Shays - Meehan, Pickering Nomination
Hello everybody,
First, today is the day when the House will either pass the
Shays-Meehan bill intact and give us meaningful campaign finance
reform, or we will fail again in this critical area. If there
is any
doubt in your mind about how your representive will vote, please
call
his or her office right away, even though it's already after
6:30 pm
Eastern time. A vote is expected by midnight. I'm not sure that
messages will still get through but I think it's worth a try
in case
they might.
Second, I just received this alert on a bad judicial appointment
from
Bush. Emails to most or all of the Judiciary Committee appear
to be
in order. There is an automated way to send mail to the most
cooperative eleven members or so, by following the link at the
end of
this forwarded letter. Otherwise you can go to:
http://judiciary.senate.gov/members.htm
to track down links to members' message systems.
Thank you.
Joe Holmes
========================+++
Judge Charles Pickering, President George W. Bush's nominee
to the US
Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, could receive
a vote by
the Senate Judiciary Committee as soon as February 28. Pickering's
recent
testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee clearly demonstrates
that
he should not be confirmed. Pickering is anti-women's and anti-civil
rights. He has opposed legal abortion throughout his life and
opposed the
Equal Right Amendment. As a district court judge, he criticized
voting
rights remedies that improved African American chances to be
elected and
attempted to have the sentence of a cross burner reduced.
During his hearing, Pickering refused to answer questions
on his views on
important matters of constitutional law, such as legal abortion
and gun
control. This behavior echoes that of Clarence Thomas-- a nominee
who
dodged crucial questions on legal and constitutional matters
that affect
women and minorities, and then voted along with the right-wing
when
confirmed.
Pickering's nomination is just one more action in a line of
anti-abortion
and anti-women's rights actions Bush has taken since his Presidency
began.
On his first official day in office, President Bush reinstated
the global
gag rule, curtailing access to abortion and information about
abortion for
women world-wide. His anti-abortion and anti-women's rights policies
have
continued, from his proposals to increase funding for "abstinence-only"
sex education at the expense of more comprehensive programs that
have been
proven more effective to the more recent hold on US funding to
the United
Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).
You can TAKE ACTION TODAY by emailing Judiciary Committee
members and
urging them to oppose Pickering's nomination to the 5th Circuit
Court.
http://www.Million4Roe.com
========================================================+
Date: Tuesday, February
5, 2002 7:11 PM
Subject: Shays-Meehan, Campaign Finance Reform!
Hi Everybody,
A momentous occasion will arrive just next Wednesday, the
13th--the
House of Representatives is finally going to get a chance to
vote on
serious campaign finance reform, over the bitter objections of
Tom
DeLay and friends. It's time for us to make noise. Please call
your
representative and try to write a letter to the editor of your
local
paper. This may be our last chance for a long to time partially
free
ourselves from the yoke of the culture of money that pervades
the
capital. Nearly everything on the planet will be affected by
this
outcome, in some degree.
Thanks!
Joe Holmes
(sample letters, courtesy of MoveOn.org below)
=================================+++
Dear friend of MoveOn,
Our best chance ever to get big money out of politics is finally
here.
The House has just scheduled a vote on a key campaign finance
reform
bill for next Wednesday, February 13th. Your Representative,
Barbara Lee, is a swing vote on this crucial issue.
The Shays-Meehan bill would ban "Soft Money" --
enormous, unregulated
contributions to political parties, mostly by corporations like
Enron,
that make up the single biggest pot of money in our political
system.
With the vote one week away, the best way you can help now
is to send
a letter to the editor of your newspaper. It will help focus
public
attention on your Representative's vote, which is vital for success.
We've made it easy by including a few sample letters below.
Simply copy
and paste one, edit it a little -- your own words are always
better --
and send it in to your paper. Most newspapers list an address
on their
letters page. Be sure to include your name, address and telephone
number in your letter. (The phone number is only used to verify
your
authorship, and should not appear in the paper. But if the editors
can't verify a letter is yours, they won't print it.)
Please let us know you've sent your letter at:
http://www.moveon.org/lte.html?id=417-472805-xXbcU%2F8aj9P6Wtfw3yRX3Q
This really is our best chance ever. A majority of the House
has signed
a petition calling for this vote; the Senate has already passed
the
companion McCain-Feingold bill. But the vote will be extremely
close:
many members of Congress, including Barbara Lee, are *very* nervous
about changing the money system that elected them.
The vote is just one week away. Please send in your letter
TODAY.
Thank you. This may be the biggest difference we can make.
Sincerely,
-Wes, Joan, Peter, Carrie, and Eli
___________
SAMPLE LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
(DATE)
(EDITOR'S NAME)
(TITLE)
(PUBLICATION)
(ADDRESS/E-MAIL)
Dear Editor,
If the Enron scandal proves anything, it's that big money
buys too much
clout in Washington. Too often, the rest of us are left out in
the cold.
Fortunately, a solution is in sight. Next week, with the help
of
Representative Barbara Lee, Congress may ban the huge, mostly
corporate
campaign contributions to political parties known as "Soft
Money."
After years of hard work, the Shays-Meehan campaign finance
reform bill
is about to come up for a decisive vote in the House. Already,
a
majority of the House has signed a petition calling for this
vote; the
Senate has already passed the companion McCain-Feingold bill.
The upcoming House vote will be extremely close -- votes for
reform are
always difficult. I hope Representative Barbara Lee will do the
right
thing by voting to ban Soft Money.
Sincerely,
(YOUR NAME)
(YOUR ADDRESS)
(YOUR PHONE NUMBER FOR VERIFICATION ONLY)
___________
(DATE)
(EDITOR'S NAME)
(TITLE)
(PUBLICATION)
(ADDRESS/E-MAIL)
Dear Editor:
Luckily, not everyone in Washington is corrupt. Next week,
thanks to
years of hard work by supporters of campaign finance reform,
the House
will vote on whether to ban the enormous, mostly corporate campaign
gifts to political parties known as "Soft Money."
Now is the time for Representative Barbara Lee to do the right
thing
by voting for the Shays-Meehan bill, banning Soft Money. Already,
a
majority of the House has signed a petition calling for this
vote; the
Senate has already passed the companion McCain-Feingold bill.
Next week's vote will be extremely close -- votes for reform
are
always difficult. This is a chance for Representative Barbara
Lee
to show real leadership.
Sincerely,
(YOUR NAME)
(YOUR ADDRESS)
(YOUR PHONE NUMBER FOR VERIFICATION ONLY)
__________
(DATE)
(EDITOR'S NAME)
(TITLE)
(PUBLICATION)
(ADDRESS/E-MAIL)
Dear Editor:
Next week, the House will vote on a campaign finance reform
bill that
truly changes politics and policy making in Washington. Sponsored
by
Congressmen Chris Shays (R-CT) and Martin Meehan (D-MA), the
bill will
put an end to soft money - the unlimited contributions from
corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals.
Thanks to the courage of a bipartisan coalition who insisted
on this
vote against the wishes of the House leadership, we have a genuine
chance to win this battle. But to reach our goal we must have
the
support of Representative Barbara Lee.
Last year in the first session of this Congress the Senate
passed the
nearly identical McCain-Feingold bill. Now, as the House vote
approaches, the Enron scandal has once again made clear how important
it is to end the corrupting influence of big money. The unchecked
power to influence legislation and public policy must be stopped.
The
momentum is with us now to do just that.
Sincerely,
(YOUR NAME)
(YOUR ADDRESS)
(YOUR PHONE NUMBER FOR VERIFICATION ONLY)
__________
This is a message from MoveOn.org
========================================================+
Date: Tuesday, October 30,
2001 8:39 AM
Subject: Bin Laden Revolution?
Thanks Elmo for this most intriguing article from the Times
in
Britain. When caught up in history, it's great to get a comforting
glimpse of how that history works.
Joe Holmes
=======================+++
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,248-2001373483,00.html
EDITOR
MONDAY OCTOBER 29 2001
No future in bin Laden revolution
WILLIAM REES-MOGG
Osama bin Laden is the Sorcerer's Apprentice of the Islamic
fundamentalist revolution. The revolution itself is real enough,
fuelled by religious puritanism, hostility to Israel and America,
cultural changes and social deprivation. It is as real as the
English
Puritan revolutions of the 17th century, as the American Declaration
of Independence, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution,
the
Nazi Revolution or the Chinese Revolution. Like them it portends
war.
But bin Laden is not a great revolutionary leader. He is not
to be
compared with Cromwell, Washington, William of Orange, Napoleon,
Lenin, Hitler or Mao.
He is much closer to the immature charismatics who have come
to the
surface in many revolutionary situations, danced for the moment
on
the flood of events, and then been submerged by them. He is a
Robespierre or lesser Trotsky, perhaps only a Duke of Monmouth.
He is
one of those of whom Lenin was thinking when he wrote of "left-wing
deviationism - an infantile disorder". For all his personal
austerity, and his merciless use of terror, he belongs to the
category of playboy revolutionary, a rich man's spoilt son petulantly
seeking the approval of his deceased papa.
The distinction between serious revolutionary leaders and
these
mayflies of the revolutionary process is that the great leaders
have
a strategic analysis of the real forces and develop an effective
strategy for dealing with them. Of the seven great revolutionary
leaders, six had such a grasp of reality that they died in their
beds, even if Napoleon's bed was on St Helena. Only Hitler, who
lost
touch with reality after 1940, had to commit suicide. Monmouth
died
on the scaffold, Robespierre on his own guillotine and Trotsky
with
Stalin's ice pick in his head. Someone is going to kill Osama
bin
Laden; he will almost welcome it, because that is the only end
that
fits the drama he has scripted for himself.
Tactically, last week may have seemed a good one for bin Laden,
with
an unfortunate emissary betrayed to the Taleban and killed, and
with
some American bombs going astray. Yet that week has achieved
nothing
of substance for him, except another week's survival. In all
other
respects, the coalition he has brought against him has become
more
decided. In particular, America remains wholly determined to
destroy
the terrorist network which committed the crimes of September
11.
That is bad enough for bin Laden, but the reality of the non-Islamic
world is equally threatening. The modern world has five great
regional powers: the United States, China, Russia, Europe and
India.
Before September 11, two of these powers were already at war
with
aspects of the Islamic revolution: Russia in Chechnya and India
in
Kashmir.
After September 11, the United States and Europe declared
war on
Islamic terrorism; the Chinese became more concerned about their
Islamic minority. From two great power enemies to five in one
day is
a poor strategy. In effect, the five great powers, with more
than
half the world's population, form an Iron Pentagon around bin
Laden's
revolution.
His strategy should have been designed to divide the potential
enemies of the Islamic revolution and unite his potential supporters.
He has achieved the opposite. He has united his enemies by the
threat
of terrorism. All the five great powers have airlines, skyscrapers
and post offices. We do not know whether bin Laden provided the
anthrax spores. Perhaps so, perhaps not. The anthrax has, however,
done its geopolitical work. It has made it clear to all the great
powers that international terror is directed against the whole
order
of the world, as much a threat to Beijing as to Washington. We
are
all in this together, whether we like it or not.
He has united his enemies; no one has ever united the world's
powers
in such a way before. It is an achievement of a kind, but hardly
one
he can have foreseen. Indeed we do not really know how much he
does
foresee. Undoubtedly his organisation authorised and facilitated
the
crimes of September 11, but did he foresee the consequences?
He may,
for he is a clever man, have seen an advantage in forcing America
to
respond against Afghanistan. But did he realise that September
11
would not be just another terror spectacular, but to Americans
an
unforgivable offence? Did he know that he was going to change
the
world, largely to the disadvantage of the Islamic revolution?
If he has united the world powers against him, has he united
the
Islamic world on his side? In one sense. Almost all Muslims,
even
less observant Muslims of the West, feel a loyalty to the Islamic
community, just as almost all Jews feel a loyalty to Israel.
This
loyalty is aroused when any Islamic country comes under attack,
just
as Jews feel most loyal to Israel when it is most threatened.
Such
loyalties exist even when the peoples concerned disapprove of
the
actions of the governments which benefit from their loyalty.
Jews do
not have to agree with Ariel Sharon to rally to the defence of
Israel; Muslims do not have to sympathise with Osama bin Laden
to
rally to Afghanistan.
So far, so good for bin Laden's strategy. Every bomb on Afghanistan
recruits Muslims to support the revolution, particularly when
bin
Laden has not been caught and the Taleban not yet destroyed.
Yet this
is a superficial view. What bin Laden has done is also a universal
challenge to the people of Islam and their governments. Some
key
questions will be answered in the negative. "Do I believe
the New
York massacre was compatible with Islamic principles? No."
"Do I
support American bombing of Afghanistan? No." "Would
I like to be
governed by people such as the Taleban? No." These are the
likely
responses of many Muslims. There is a pro-bin Laden crowd, but
the
logic of Islamic development is against him.
All the Islamic governments are threatened. They have work
to do.
They face destabilising mass poverty and unemployment. They want
to
develop their countries in stable economic and political conditions.
They need to work with the leading economic powers of the world,
and
expand trade and investment. They do not want to kill their
customers. They know that bin Laden's terrorists would kill them,
given half a chance. Whatever they may think it prudent to say
in
public, every Islamic government must see bin Laden as a menace.
The modern world has not happened by accident. One of the
insights of
Karl Marx, who remains the most interesting historian of revolutions,
is that the changes in the means of production changed the structure
of society, creating new class interests and social ideas. One
of the
global challenges to Islam is the role of women. In the 20th
century
the social position of women in advanced countries was revolutionised
by the vote, by the Pill and by the personal computer. The vote
gave
women political equality; the Pill gave them sexual equality;
the PC
gave them economic equality.
The modern world, including the larger Islamic countries,
has come to
terms with that. Both Turkey and Pakistan have already had women
as
heads of government, as has Britain. For the United States, Russia
and China, that is yet to come. The Chinese had a narrow escape
from
Madam Mao. Do the women of the world, including Muslim women,
want to
return to their status in 7th century Arabia? They do not. Nor
does
the Koran tell them that they should.
Revolutions succeed where they represent the modern against
the
obsolete. Counter-revolutions fail. Even Nazism traded on the
appeal
of the modern. Bin Laden has identified his revolution not only
with
terror but with the reactionary and archaic brutalities of the
Taleban. There are revolutionary forces at work in Islam; some
Islamic societies are ripe for radical change. If Osama bin Laden
had
been able to identify his revolution with the real social and
economic needs of Islam, he would have offered what revolutions
must
offer, a new dynamic towards a new society.
As it is, he has identified his revolution with everything
that is
most backward in the Islamic world. In the seven major revolutions
of
modern history, the future, however terrible, has always defeated
the
past. Anti-modernist revolutions have never succeeded, not even
in
Naples or the Royal Academy. Anti-modernism will not conquer
Islam.
Osama bin Laden is not a serious revolutionary; he is a poseur,
a
silly but lethal boy.
Copyright 2001 Times Newspapers Ltd. This service is provided
on
Times Newspapers' standard terms and conditions. To inquire about
a
licence to reproduce material from The Times, visit the Syndication
website.
Opinion
October 29, 2001
========================================================+
Date: Tuesday, October 30,
2001 9:35 AM
Subject: Energy Bill Alert from NRDC and Redford
Dear friends,
You may have heard most of this before, but times have changed
and a
new impetus is pushing for this massive disinvestment in our
future.
We must free ourselves of our addiction to petroleum and other
fossil
fuels. We have no other choice. Exxon posted the largest corporate
profits in history recently. Profit is the <only> reason
behind the
looming moves in Congress.
Joe Holmes
========================+++
Dear Fellow NRDC Member,
It is understandable that we Americans feel an almost reflexive
need
for unanimity in trying times like these. As a nation, we are
rightly
consumed with responding to the terrorist attacks on September
11th.
But, at some point -- and I think we're beginning to get there
-- we
need to take a long-term view even as we are reacting to the
current
crisis. Really important domestic issues facing us before all
of this
happened -- education, energy and the environment, health care
--
still have the same dimension and consequence. But we have to
recognize that it's much more difficult to discuss and debate
them in
the aftermath of Sept. 11th. Unfortunately, disagreement is sometimes
characterized as unpatriotic during times such as these and open,
thoughtful discourse is somewhat muted. The gravity of the current
situation is not lost on any of us and we all want to do what's
right
to insure our national security. It is with this in mind that
I felt
compelled to write you today.
A handful of determined U.S. senators, encouraged by the White
House,
are arguing that national security requires the Senate to rush
a
pro-oil energy bill into law. They have vowed to hold up normal
Senate
business and attach the bill to every piece of legislation that
comes
to the Senate floor. So far they have failed in what The Boston
Globe
is calling "oil opportunism." But with President Bush,
himself, now
calling for rushed passage of this disastrous bill, intense pressure
is building on Senate leaders to succumb to the emotions of the
moment. Using our national tragedy as an opportunity to advance
the
narrow interests of the oil lobby would not be in the best interest
of
the public. This bill, already passed by the House, would not
only
open the Arctic Refuge to oil rigs, it would also pave the way
for
energy companies to exploit and destroy pristine areas of Greater
Yellowstone and other gems of our natural heritage. As important,
it
would do nothing to address energy security.
I'm asking for your immediate help in stopping this legislation.
After
reading my letter I hope you'll take action at
http://www.savebiogems.org/arctic/index.asp?src=aa0110a and then
forward this letter to your friends and colleagues.
Last spring, the Bush administration and some members of Congress
said
we had to pass the president's oil-friendly energy bill because
we
were facing the most serious energy crisis since 1973. But here
we
are, a mere six months later, and the energy crisis has vanished.
Due
to a slowing economy and falling demand, the prices for gasoline,
natural gas and home heating oil have plunged. Meanwhile, the
much-feared "summer of blackouts" in California never
happened,
largely because consumers and businesses made dramatic cuts in
energy
use by launching the most successful statewide conservation campaign
in history.
With no energy crisis to scare us with, the administration
and pro-oil
senators are now promoting their "Drill the Arctic"
plan under the
guise of national security and energy independence. Don't buy
it. It
would take ten years to bring Arctic oil to market, and when
it
arrives it would never equal more than two percent -- a mere
drop in
the bucket -- of all the oil we consume each year. Our nation
simply
doesn't have enough oil to drill our way to energy independence
or
even to affect world oil prices.
We possess a mere 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, but
we
consume fully 25 percent of the world's oil supply. We could
drill the
Arctic Refuge, Greater Yellowstone, and every other wildland
in
America and we'd still be importing oil, still be paying worldwide
prices for domestic oil, and still be vulnerable to wild gyrations
in
price and supply. As The Atlanta Constitution put it: "Burning
through
our tiny oil supply faster will not make our country more secure."
I'd
go further: increasing our dependence on oil, whether that oil
comes
from the Persian Gulf or the Arctic Refuge, practically guarantees
national *insecurity*. And we know that it will bring more habitat
destruction, more oil spills, more air pollution, and more global
warming. The public health implications will be devastating.
If our nation wants to declare energy independence, then we
have no
choice but to reduce our appetite for oil. There's no other way.
We
need to rely on smarter and cleaner ways to power our economy.
We have
the technology right now to increase fuel economy standards to
40
miles per gallon. If we phased in that standard by 2012 we'd
save 15
times more oil than the Arctic Refuge is likely to produce over
50
years. We could also give tax rebates for existing hybrid gas-electric
vehicles that get as much as 60 mpg. We could invest in public
transit. We could launch an "Apollo Project" to bring
fuel cells and
hydrogen fuel down to earth, allowing us to begin the mass production
of vehicles that emit only water as a by-product. The list goes
on and
on.
In this climate of national trauma and war, it is up to us
-- the
people -- to ensure that reason prevails and our natural heritage
survives intact. The preservation of irreplaceable wildlands
like the
Arctic Refuge and Greater Yellowstone is a core American value.
I have
never been more appreciative of the wisdom of that value than
during
these past few weeks. When we are filled with grief and unanswerable
questions it is often nature that we turn to for refuge and comfort.
In the sanctuary of a forest or the vastness of the desert or
the
silence of a grassland, we can touch a timeless force larger
than
ourselves and our all-too-human problems. This is where the healing
begins. Those who would sell out this natural heritage -- this
spiritual heritage -- would destroy a wellspring of American
strength.
What's worse, their rush to exploit the wildness that feeds our
souls
won't do a thing to solve our energy problems.
There are plenty of sensible and patriotic ways to guarantee
our
nation's energy security, but destroying the Arctic Refuge is
not one
of them. Please tell that to your senators. They urgently need
to hear
it because the pressure is on to move this pro-oil bill to a
vote in
the next few weeks. It will take you only a minute to send them
an
electronic message from NRDC's SaveBioGems website.
Go to http://www.savebiogems.org/arctic/index.asp?src=aa0110a
And please forward this message to your family and friends.
Millions
of Americans need to know about this cynical attempt to promote
the
interests of energy companies at the expense of everyone else.
Sincerely yours,
Robert Redford
=====
BioGems: Saving Endangered Wild Places
A project of the Natural Resources Defense Council
http://www.savebiogems.org
If you have any questions about this message, please write
to us at
membership@nrdc.org
========================================================+
Date: Thursday, October 25,
2001 10:34 AM
Subject: Utah Wilderness Alert
. . . I'm sure my congressman will be voting the right way,
as he always does,
so there isn't much I can do (George Miller).
Joe
=====================+++
From: AlertList@suwa.org
To: AlertList@suwa.org
Subject: *RED ALERT* Pilot Range VOTE Next Week!
X-Loop: uw
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 19:21:37 -0600
**RED ALERT -- CALL CONGRESS NOW -- PILOT RANGE BILL FLOOR
VOTE NEXT WEEK**
Unwilling to negotiate with the environmental community, House
Resources
Committee Chairman Jim Hansen (R-Utah) has told colleagues he
will seek
floor time to move ahead with his anti-wilderness Pilot Range
Wilderness
Act (H.R. 2488) next week! This situation in the House of Representatives
is now CRITICAL FOR UTAH WILDERNESS.
PLEASE CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE IMMEDIATELY AND ASK HER/HIM
TO VOTE "NO" ON
H.R. 2488. Just call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121
and ask for
your Representative. (If you don't know the name of your Representative,
just go to www.congress.org and type in your ZIP code in the
appropriate
box to find out.) You may be patched through to your Representative's
home
District office because of temporary office closures in DC, but
don't
worry, the District staff will relay the message to the DC staff.
If you
have trouble getting through because of this unusual situation,
please try
again until you do! Ask your Rep simply to vote "NO"
on H.R. 2488. The
many reasons why are listed below.
In Salt Lake City, WE NEED VOLUNTEERS to help us phone our
supporters so
they can in turn call Congress to help stop this bill. We'll
call starting
TONIGHT Wednesday, October 24 through Tuesday, October 30. We
call from
6:00-9:00 p.m. each weeknight and Sunday and from 11:00 a.m.
- 2:00 p.m. on
Saturday, October 27. We'll provide pizza to keep callers energized!
To
volunteer, call Bob Brister at (801) 486-7639 ext. 12.
UPDATE FROM PREVIOUS ALERT
Rep. Hansen just does not seem to get it, folks. Again, he
has snubbed
efforts by SUWA, Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society, and the
rest of the
Utah Wilderness Coalition and other national conservation groups
to
compromise and improve his bill so that it creates a true Wilderness
area
in the tradition of the 1964 Wilderness Act. Instead, he insists
that the
FIRST bill for Bureau of Land Management (BLM) wilderness in
Utah be of a
degraded new type, a pseudo-wilderness or a wilderness in name
only. Once
again, it looks like it's either his way or the highway; yesterday
he
scuttled the promised negotiations with committee Democrats and
vowed to
take his bill to a floor vote, while Capitol Hill is still in
complete
disarray from the recent scare. At this point, only *you* stand
in his
way. PLEASE call and help stop him again!
WHY H.R. 2488 MUST BE STOPPED
H.R. 2488 is an indirect attempt to re-write sections of the
1964
Wilderness Act, degrading wilderness management through less-protective
language allowing new construction within wilderness. It also
sets back
wilderness
efforts throughout Utah by canceling wilderness study on deserving
lands,
by lopping off great tracts of wilderness with a minimal boundary,
and by
denying water rights for this desert wilderness.
If the Congress approves this bill, it would be the first
Utah BLM
wilderness bill ever to pass. And if the first bill to pass contains
this
bad management language and cancels much-needed wilderness study
efforts,
it will set a new low standard for ALL future bills.
Chairman Hansen confirmed this intent during Committee markup,
saying that
when he's done with this bill, he'll move to the next county,
repeating
this process as he moves through the whole state using the same
management
language throughout. His clear intent is to minimize the eventual
total
acreage of designated wilderness, and to fatigue the Congress
with tiny
Utah related wilderness bills until they weary of fighting to
improve them.
Either way, he gets his wish: minimal wilderness in Utah.
DETAILED PROBLEMS WITH H.R. 2488 (POINTS TO MAKE WITH YOUR
REPRESENTATIVE)
1) The bill establishes NO FEDERAL RESERVED WATER RIGHT for
the new
wilderness area. Wilderness bills generally provide this right,
which says
that federal wilderness has a right to water -- a "junior"
right, subject
to all prior water rights held by private land owners, the state,
or other
entities. The federal water right gets at the end of the line,
and someday
in the distant future, when and if other owners have given up
their right,
it can become a senior right, letting the water flow forever.
This is not
much to ask, in fact it has been standard language in previous
wilderness
bills. As written, H.R. 2488 explicitly *denies* a water right
for this
new, tiny wilderness area -- a desert wilderness with only two
perennial
creeks, both containing a threatened species of trout!
2) The bill contains language allowing the MILITARY UNPRECEDENTED
ACCESS TO
BUILD NEW STRUCTURES IN THE NEW WILDERNESS AREA. While past wilderness
bills have accommodated our military's need to occasionally access
remote
wilderness, this bill goes too far by authorizing new construction
projects
in so-called wilderness, and in some cases closing the public
land and
shutting the public out of the wilderness. No previous wilderness
bill has
ever authorized construction or installation of new facilities
in this way
-- bulldozers and cement trucks do NOT belong in wilderness!
3) The bill throws out more than half the qualifying wilderness
in the
Pilot Range and CANCELS THE BLM'S "SECTION 202" WILDERNESS
PLANNING PROCESS
in the area. It is alarming that the bill's terrible boundary
could
establish a new "percentage precedent," making it likely
that future Utah
bills would protect less than half the wilderness in a given
area. What
makes it worse is that H.R. 2488 would cancel the BLM's wilderness
planning
process for the Pilots, rubbing out the results of BLM's long-awaited
re-inventory there, as if the agency's study was never conducted
in the
first place! The BLM reinventory found an additional 2.6 million
acres
meeting wilderness criteria throughout Utah, and BLM's Section
202 planning
process currently seeks to designate these areas as new Wilderness
Study
Areas (which BLM *should have done* 20 years ago). The unprecedented
"202
release" language in H.R. 2488 is a direct attempt to roll
back the
progress BLM has made, and torpedo new Wilderness Study Areas
throughout
Utah.
To top it off, the 20-odd square miles of wild benchlands
that H.R. 2488
would lop off the BLM-inventoried wilderness *was proposed for
wilderness
designation by Rep. Hansen himself* last Congress, in his West
Desert bill
H.R. 3035. No explanation has been given for this stunning reversal
that
would leave out the entire mountain's wild benchlands and tell
BLM "don't
plan wilderness here"!
Please call your Representative right away and ask them to
vote "NO" on
H.R. 2488 because of these three grave problems. With your help
we can
stop H.R. 2488 or gain changes that will give Utah wilderness
the real
protection it deserves. Thank you!!!
========================================================+
Date: Monday, September 17,
2001 5:09 PM
Subject: Afghan Eye-Opener
Here is an interesting piece about Afghanistan from an author
unknown
to myself, that is being passed around the Net today.
Have a normal evening!
Joe Holmes
=================================+++
Facts about Osama, the Taliban, & Afghanistan
In recent days, many people have been saying or implying that
the
Taliban and the people of Afghanistan are one in the same. Below
are
a number of factual points showing how this is untrue. The Afghan
people oppose Osama bin Laden and oppose the Taliban, who are
controlling their country by force.
1) The Afghan people do not want Osama in Afghanistan - The
Taliban,
not the Afghan people, allow Osama to stay in Afghanistan. The
Afghan
people hate that because of Osama's presence they are denied
humanitarian aid, and their country's reputation is being smeared.
2) The Taliban is not a legitimate government - they are a
fundamentalist Islamic military dictatorship that took control
of the
country in a bloody civil
war.
3) The Islam of Osama, The Taliban, and Terrorists is not
real Islam
- The Afghan people and Muslims around the world condemn the
corrupted twisting of Islam that Osama, the Taliban and other
Islamic
terrorists promote. True Islam forbids the killing of innocent
people
and accords women equality and respect.
4) Osama bin Laden is not Afghan - Osama bin Laden is Saudi
Arabian,
not Afghan. But no one in their right mind is suggesting we should
bomb our ally Saudi Arabia
5) The Afghan people are against the Taliban - The majority
of the
Afghan people are against the Taliban and want a government that
will
provide peace, freedom and democracy.
6) The Taliban rule thru terrorism - The Taliban maintain
control,
against the will of the people, by violence, terrorism and threat
and
has denied the people of Afghanistan of all their civil and human
rights.
7) The Taliban kill Afghans - The Taliban commit horrific
acts of
violence against the people of Afghanistan including: killing,
torture, forced expulsion of members of ethnic groups from their
villages (e.g. Shamolee), massacres of entire towns (e.g. Yakawlang),
forcing families to turn over their teenage girls for marriage.
8) Girls and Women are denied basic human rights - Under the
oppression of the Taliban, Afghan girls and women are not allowed
to
leave their houses, are not allowed to work, are not allowed
to go to
school, are not allowed to be seen or heard in public, cannot
receive
medical care, are considered worth only one half of a man.
9) Taliban deny freedom to all - Under the oppression of the
Taliban
stuffed animals, kite flying, music, family photos, TV, the Internet
have all been banned and destroyed. Under the Taliban men are
forced
to grow beards of a certain length, pray, and keep the women
of their
family under house arrest. The only education available for boys
is
religious rote memorization.
10) Taliban use violence instead of justice - The Taliban's
punishment for breaking any of their edicts is public whippings,
limb
amputations, and executions, without due process or fair hearings.
11) Taliban do not provide for people's basic needs - The
Taliban
have used their money for military operations to fight other
fundamentalist factions within the country rather than to provide
for
the Afghan people who are starving due to a four year drought,
world
sanctions, lack of infrastructure, jobs, and freedom. There is
no
phone service, no postal service, the economy is in ruins.
12) Afghans have fled - Over 3 million Afghans have fled the
Taliban
and the other fundamentalist factions and live as refugees around
the
world. Another 25 million Afghans are too poor, sick, or hungry
to
leave. Many are internally displaced - forced to flee their homes
due
to violence and the risk of starvation, but forbidden by neighboring
countries to cross their border.
13) Afghan people are actively resisting the Taliban - Afghans
in
Afghanistan are fighting against the Taliban. In addition to
armed
opposition, many Afghan groups provide food and shelter, run
underground schools, health clinics, orphanages, and some document
and protest Taliban and other fundamentalist factions' atrocities.
14) Who are the friends of the Taliban? - The Afghan people
are not
the friends of the Taliban. The Taliban is recognized as a government
by only three countries in the world: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia
and the
United Arab Emirates. The Taliban came to power with the military
and
financial aid of Pakistan and the Pakistani ISI, their secret
police.
They are educated in fundamentalist Islamic madrassa (schools)
in
Pakistan. They maintain power through the military and financial
aid
of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and Islamist extremist groups in
other
countries.
15) Who are the Taliban? - The Taliban are not all Afghans.
They
include Arabs, Pakistanis, Kashmiris, and others, most of whom
don't
even speak the major languages of Afghanistan (Dari Persian and
Pashto). Many are mercenaries and extremists from around the
world.
Thus:
1) Afghans and Americans have a lot in common and a common
enemy -
Both the US and the Afghan people are currently victims of terrorism
and (if proven to be the case in the US) fundamentalist violence.
Afghans along with the rest of the world stand against Osama,
and
against the Taliban and their fundamentalist oppression of
freedom-loving people.
2) Killing more Afghans will help, not hurt, Osama and the
Taliban -
Bombing the Afghan people plays directly into the hands of terrorists
and Islamic fundamentalists like Osama and the Taliban. They
would
like help in controlling the opposition of the Afghan people.
The
Taliban and Osama would like to be able to say that the US is
against
the Afghan people.
3) Bombing Afghanistan will hurt innocent people not Osama
and the
Taliban - Bombing Afghanistan and the Afghan people will not
touch
Osama and the Taliban. They are the only groups with the power
and
resources to flee. Only the innocent people of Afghanistan will
be
left and killed.
4) Bombing Afghanistan will kill our allies not our enemies
- Bombing
Afghanistan will kill the very people who are on our side - Afghans
working for peace, freedom, and democracy, and against fundamentalist
oppression.
Please help get out the word. Our anger should be against
the
perpetrators of this horrific violence, and against those who
limit
freedom, democracy, peace, and human rights all over the world.
Our
anger should be against those who use violence and terror to
try to
make everyone act and think like they do.
We would never ever blame the hostages on the airplanes that
struck
the World Trade Center for the destruction caused by the armed
terrorist pilots. We similarly must not blame the people of
Afghanistan, who are also hostages, for the actions of the armed
despots who steer their country.
========================================================+
Date: Friday, September 14,
2001 1:26 PM
Subject: A Interesting Foreign Policy Commentary
Here is another interesting article on the foreign policy
issues that
I think we all need to recognize vis-a-vis our complicated history
in
the Middle East, thank you Jon.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/14_09_01_a.htm
Best wishes to you all,
Joe Holmes
========================================================+
Date: Friday, September
14, 2001 1:20 PM
Subject: Two Articles:
Here are a pair of articles on some of the foreign policy
issues by
well-informed people. Thank you Lon and Franz.
Joe Holmes
OP-ED PAGES TROT OUT THE WHITE
HAWKS [below]
______________________
The wickedness and awesome cruelty of a crushed and humiliated
people
By Robert Fisk
Independent UK
12 September 2001
So it has come to this. The entire modern history of the Middle
East - the
collapse of the Ottoman empire, the Balfour declaration, Lawrence
of
Arabia's lies, the Arab revolt, the foundation of the state of
Israel,
four Arab-Israeli wars and the 34 years of Israel's brutal occupation
of Arab
land - all erased within hours as those who claim to represent
a crushed,
humiliated population struck back with the wickedness and awesome
cruelty
of a doomed people. Is it fair - is it moral - to write this
so soon,
without proof, when the last act of barbarism, in Oklahoma, turned
out to
be the work of home-grown Americans? I fear it is. America is
at war and,
unless I am mistaken, many thousands more are now scheduled to
die in the
Middle East, perhaps in America too. Some of us warned of "the
explosion
to come''. But we never dreamt this nightmare.
And yes, Osama bin Laden comes to mind, his money, his theology,
his
frightening dedication to destroy American power. I have sat
in front of
bin Laden as he described how his men helped to destroy the Russian
army
in Afghanistan and thus the Soviet Union. Their boundless confidence
allowed
them to declare war on America. But this is not the war of democracy
versus terror that the world will be asked to believe in the
coming days. It is
also about American missiles smashing into Palestinian homes
and US
helicopters firing missiles into a Lebanese ambulance in 1996
and American
shells crashing into a village called Qana and about a Lebanese
militia -
paid and uniformed by America's Israeli ally - hacking and raping
and
murdering their way through refugee camps.
No, there is no doubting the utter, indescribable evil of
what has
happened in the United States. That Palestinians could celebrate
the
massacre of
20,000, perhaps 35,000 innocent people is not only a symbol of
their
despair but of their political immaturity, of their failure to
grasp what
they had always been accusing their Israeli enemies of doing:
acting
disproportionately. All the years of rhetoric, all the promises
to strike
at the heart of America, to cut off the head of "the American
snake'' we
took for empty threats. How could a backward, conservative, undemocratic
and corrupt group of regimes and small, violent organisations
fulfil such
preposterous promises? Now we know.
And in the hours that followed yesterday's annihilation, I
began to
remember those other extraordinary assaults upon the US and its
allies,
miniature now by comparison with yesterday's casualties. Did
not the
suicide bombers who killed 241 American servicemen and 100 French
paratroops in Beirut on 23 October 1983, time their attacks with
unthinkable precision?
There were just seven seconds between the Marine bombing and
the
destruction of the French three miles away. Then there were the
attacks on
US bases in Saudi Arabia, and last year's attempt - almost successful
it
now turns out - to sink the USS Cole in Aden. And then how easy
was our
failure to recognise the new weapon of the Middle East which
neither
Americans nor any other Westerners could equal: the despair-driven,
desperate suicide bomber.
And there will be, inevitably, and quite immorally, an attempt
to obscure
the historical wrongs and the injustices that lie behind yesterday's
firestorms. We will be told about "mindless terrorism'',
the "mindless"
bit being essential if we are not to realise how hated America
has become in
the land of the birth of three great religions.
Ask an Arab how he responds to 20,000 or 30,000 innocent deaths
and he or
she will respond as decent people should, that it is an unspeakable
crime.
But they will ask why we did not use such words about the sanctions
that
have destroyed the lives of perhaps half a million children in
Iraq, why
we did not rage about the 17,500 civilians killed in Israel's
1982 invasion
of Lebanon. And those basic reasons why the Middle East caught
fire last
September - the Israeli occupation of Arab land, the dispossession
of
Palestinians, the bombardments and state-sponsored executions
... all
these must be obscured lest they provide the smallest fractional
reason for
yesterday's mass savagery.
No, Israel was not to blame - though we can be sure that Saddam
Hussein
and the other grotesque dictators will claim so - but the malign
influence of
history and our share in its burden must surely stand in the
dark with the
suicide bombers. Our broken promises, perhaps even our destruction
of the
Ottoman Empire, led inevitably to this tragedy. America has bankrolled
Israel's wars for so many years that it believed this would be
cost-free.
No longer so. But, of course, the US will want to strike back
against
"world terror'', and last night's bombardment of Kabul may
have been the
opening salvo. Indeed, who could ever point the finger at Americans
now
for using that pejorative and sometimes racist word "terrorism''?
Eight years ago, I helped to make a television series that
tried to
explain why so many Muslims had come to hate the West. Last night,
I remembered
some of those Muslims in that film, their families burnt by American-made
bombs and weapons. They talked about how no one would help them
but God.
Theology versus technology, the suicide bomber against the nuclear
power.
Now we have learnt what this means.
==============================+++
__________________________
OP-ED PAGES TROT OUT THE WHITE
HAWKS
http://www.tompaine.com/news/2001/09/12/index.html
TomPaine.commentary
OP-ED PAGES TROT OUT THE WHITE HAWKS
AUDIO and TEXT
Nina Burleigh has written for The Washington Post, The Chicago
Tribune, and New York magazine. As a reporter for TIME, she was
among
the first American journalists to enter Iraq after the Gulf War.
The morning after the worst terrorist attack in the history,
the
nations' great editorial page editors have offered up the wisdom
of a
group of middle-aged white men whose claim to fame is that they
lost
the Vietnam War.
And on a day when every television and newspaper hack around
the
country was proclaiming "a new era" in national defense
needs, the
Washington Post, the paper of record in the national capitol,
solicited the wisdom of a pair of Nixon administration chicken
hawks.
The New York Times gave readers the advice of its resident ex-Nixon
speechwriter.
It is not impossible to find smart people in this country
with new
ideas about terrorism and how to go about fighting it. One of
them is
Jessica Stern of the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, formerly
with the Clinton Administration National Security Agency. Stern
spent
the last several years interviewing the men and boys in Pakistan
whose most fervent dream is to die the sort of death the hijackers
died yesterday. Stern and others like her have taken the time
to
learn a little Urdu and face the enemy on enemy ground, to find
out
how he thinks and perhaps learn ways to foil diabolical plans.
Yet rather than seek the ideas of young, and possibly female,
experts
with new ideas, Washington Post op-editors give column inches
to
Nixon administration Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Nixon
speechwriter George Will. The Post editors are apparently time-warped
by the soothing sounds the failed patriarchs of the past: Former
Nixon advisor Donald Rumsfeld, and former Nixon administration
bureaucrat Dick Cheney, our vice president "in charge of
the
government," as network television reassuringly put it,
while
President Bush officially went missing when Manhattan's towers
crumbled.
Kissinger, Will, Safire, Rumsfeld, Cheney -- the names of middle-aged
and well-fed white guys who lost the Vietnam War to precisely
the
same breed of committed, angry brown men capable of living in
deprivation as Osama bin Laden. Their conventional wisdom then,
as
now, was to attack the state that harbored the network, with
American
boys sent in to fight a jungle war against an invisible, committed
enemy.
For the Post and Times to trot out these failed policy makers
on this
terrible day-after is evidence of profound reliance on outworn
thinking to address dangerous new territory.
To paraphrase our president, 'God help us.'
This is Nina Burleigh for TomPaine.com
========================================================+
Date: Thursday, September 13,
2001 10:13 AM
Subject: Support from France
Here is a lovely letter reporting on the sentiments of our
dear
allies, the French, thank you Jon. And three cheers for NATO's
declaration as well.
Joe Holmes
=============================+++
Michael Puttré
Managing Editor
Email: mp@jedonline.com
Dear Michael,
How are you? Hard to say good morning today after the nightmare
on the East coast these days.
Here, in France the emotion is deep and high. As for me of course,
I am
very affected, having appreciated many times New York and the
people of
the Pentagon also. But there are also the victims of the jetliners.
You
know New York is 6 hours from Paris (like Paris/Marseilles in
the
train). New York is the first city visited by the French tourist
and
there are 150 000 French citizens living in the city. As a consequence,
many have informs us about the event by phone in the minute.
Here, the emotion is very high, from the head of state to
the
simple citizens. We see many collective and individual signs
of solidarity
from the French people. It will be hard to mention all of them.
The spirit of La Fayette perhaps !
We can list the followings:
NATO meet in order to carry out Article 5 of the treaty.
Friday is decreted "National Mourning Day" by the governement.
All the flags of state buildings have been put down. There will
be one
minute of silence at sport events. This morning, I discoverd
that the flag
of my company have been brought down also.
According an opinion pool achieved yesterday, 96 % of the
French
expressed there close solidarity with the american citizens.
Le Monde newspaper titled : "We are all Americans".
As you know perhaps: the city of New-York is twined with the
city Paris.
There are special ceremonies in churches. A stick of fire
men of
the "Paris Brigade" was present including the militaries
who had been
before with the fire men of New York in the framework of exchange
programs.
The French governement has tasked the civil securities units
(specialized in rescue after earth quake) to be ready to go to
New York
if needed by the US administration.
On the TV, the ennoncers are all in black and humoristic programs
have
been supressed. We see 24H/24H special programs and stories
on the event and its impact in France and in the world.
Moreover, the anti-terrorist plan had been reactivated and the
French Air force, put into alert on september 11th. On the TV
we saw a special story
on the Mirage 2000 of Cambrai Air base, tasked to intervene in
the case of an air-terrorist
attack. A press conference has been achieved.
I think about New York. I hope that New York will rebuild
as soon as
possible the World Trade Center to erase the event and to show
to the World again the exact
visage of the legendary "city that never sleep". The
financial district is the window of America.
After an attack of your home or your shop, the window must be
rebuild.
As for me this works for the WTC.
For the Pentagon : the Marines always pay the tool !
God bless America !
Be sure of my sympathy,
Hoping to see you soon,
Take care,
Very friendly,
Philippe Wodka-Gallien
###
========================================================+
Date: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 6:37 PM
Subject: Errata
I just wanted to say that I took no pleasure (in my last mail)
[below] in
belittling the fellow who must function as our President (we
need him
now) and I regret giving any such impression. Rather, as I try
to
make sense out of what has happened, I hope that the nation will
think about how to insure real justice for all, including the
many
other nations whose fates are intertwined with the flow of petroleum.
Much of the history of the 20th century was shaped by the
demand for
oil and we owe it to ourselves to understand how our dependence
on it
and other carbon fuels changes the world. I don't expect to see
leadership on this part of the question from the administration.
Our foreign policy belongs to us all. I hope we find a sound
one on
the occasion of this great sadness.