IN ORDER

THE HOME OF THE BRAVE

In the United States of America, it is dangerous to protest the Bush regime. Heinous repercussions abound. One hears every day of dissenters being called 'unpatriotic,' or even 'enablers' of the enemy. Such brutality! The repression shocks even the most politically obdurate heart. I can hear God now: The wounded pride of these martyrs cries out to me from the ground!

Last week, James Taranto discussed the heroic acts of a few dissenters of the Ahmadinejad regime in Tehran. Though these protesters have much to fear, their fears pale in comparison to those experienced by American dissidents who speak truth to the 'real' power, George Bush. So perhaps Taranto's trenchant remarks will fall on deafened ears, ears bludgeoned and tortured by American expansionism and tyranny:

[The Iranian protest is] a reminder, too, of just what phonies and blowhards our American 'dissenters' are. They know it takes no courage to oppose a democratic government that holds freedom of speech sacrosanct. So they spin lurid fantasies of authoritarianism in order to convince themselves of their own bravery. [emphasis added]

One cannot find a more incisive statement ever penned about American anti-Bush protestations.

LIKE A BRIDGE OVER TROUBLED WATERS

I don't know about you, but I thought compassionate people care about children, especially children who do not have health insurance. David Limbaugh quotes the singular Paul Simon who recently spoke in favor the SCHIP legislation vetoed by President Bush:

The president's veto of the reauthorization of SCHIP appears to be a heartless act. I'm here today to ask those of you who supported the veto to reexamine your conscience, to find compassion in your heart for our most vulnerable and sweetest citizens, our children.

Heartless indeed. At least apparently. But I'm certain that Simon's statement proves that George W. Bush is not, nor was he ever, a compassionate conservative. After all, the ever-cerebral Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi put the whole thing in perspective yesterday:

And so my colleagues, we have a decision today to override the President's veto, which would be in my view the right thing to do for our children and for our country. It's not about compassion, it's about fairness…

And so I urge my colleagues to think about the children, to think about Bethany and the other children.…

The President is isolated in this. Don't join him in his isolation. Come forward on behalf of the children…

Let's give a vote for the children and against the President's veto. [emphasis added]

Since Ms. Pelosi is the supposed leader of the Democratic House, we can conclude from her remarks that her house is not about compassion, but fairness. That sounds fair to me. Compassion be damned, and so too compassionate liberalism.

Isn't it good to know that the household of the United States is in the hands of a person so capable of simplifying things?

GOOD NEWS FOR THAT 2006 MANDATE: It is SO last year!

Remember that mandate given to the Democrats after last year's mid-term elections? You remember -- when the Democrats gained control of both the Senate and the House? It's amazing how time flies when you lead so effectively. I mean, Congress currently has the lowest approval rating in the history of polling. Put another way, this is the worst Congress in history. Talk about squandering goodwill. But the best part of it all is knowing that Americans prefer ANY previous Congress -- even the "rubber stamping" Congress of 2005-06 -- to the Congress we now have in session. Stunning, isn't it?

And we thought Newt Gingrich was disliked.

But there is a bright side: My guess is that Europe loves this Congress. At least that is something in which we can take pride.

Peace.


©Bill Gnade/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Glenn Beck Is Right; But Christians, What Do You Believe?

A few moments ago, while driving in my car on my way to and from chores, I heard radio and TV talk personality, Glenn Beck, urge his listeners: Please, do not take Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lightly -- do not dismiss him! Mr. Beck's language was not only urgent, it was dire, spiritually dire. His tone was apocalyptic; he freely admitted that he was talking even in spiritual terms, terms that transcend earthly politics.

Perhaps I heard too much, but I don't think so.

Mr. Beck further described how he felt while watching Mr. Ahmadinejad deliver his speech last night to the UN General Assembly: he felt he was listening to pure evil, evil of the most deceptive and capricious kind, and it made him literally tremble.

Christians might want to take note of what Mr. Beck seems to be implying, namely, that if Mr. Ahmadinejad is not the anti-Christ, or perhaps the false prophet promoting the beast described in St. John's "Revelation," then he comes awfully close. Of course, I cannot confirm what Mr. Ahmadinejad said in last night's speech; I've yet to read the transcript. But let me simply quote from Mr. Ahmadinejad's speech to the General Assembly delivered last year; permit me to quote his last few sentences, which end in prayer:

"He [god] commands His creatures to enjoin one another to righteousness and virtue and not to sin and transgression. All Divine prophets from the Prophet Adam (peace be upon him) to the Prophet Moses (peace be upon him), to the Prophet Jesus Christ (peace be upon him), to the Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him), have all called humanity to monotheism, justice, brotherhood, love and compassion. Is it not possible to build a better world based on monotheism, justice, love and respect for the rights of human beings, and thereby transform animosities into friendship?

"I emphatically declare that today's world, more than ever before, longs for just and righteous people with love for all humanity; and above all longs for the perfect righteous human being and the real savior who has been promised to all peoples and who will establish justice, peace and brotherhood on the planet.

"O, Almighty God, all men and women are your creatures and you have ordained their guidance and salvation. Bestow upon humanity that thirsts for justice, the perfect human being promised to all by you, and make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause."[emphasis mine]

Interesting, no? Here we have a president of an important nation, praying before the General Assembly of the United Nations, imploring "God" to "bestow" upon us all the "perfect human being" who will "establish justice, peace and brotherhood on the planet."

Dear reader, what do you think? And my Christian friends, I ask you: Who is this "real" savior, the savior for whom Mr. Ahmadinejad eagerly awaits, if Jesus Christ is not the real one at all?

Peace.

BG

PS. I expended a few words on this whole thing in the not-so-distant past in this essay.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Myth And Columbia

It is not a black-and-white issue for me. I wish it was; no doubt it began as one.

When I first heard (last week?) that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was to speak at Columbia University yesterday, I was in high dudgeon. Immediately I decried Columbia president Lee Bollinger's decision to permit the man even to visit Columbia's campus. 'How can these things be?' I asked myself, incredulous at such indecency.

But now I am somewhat ambivalent. I applaud Mr. Bollinger for taking a hard-line stand with Mr. Ahmadinejad; I am glad that he called the Iranian president a 'petty and cruel dictator.' Or am I?

Yes, it is good to confront and debate ideas and policies. Yes, it is noble to challenge the zeitgeist; to take a moral stand in the face of evil. But there are dangers, very subtle dangers, in taking the 'higher road.' Two such dangers come to mind this morning.

The first is to confuse calling a guest at an American university a "petty dictator" significant or even courageous. On one level it is plainly bad manners. On another level it is the sort of spoken deed that is really a boast and conceit: look at us confront! look at us fight! look at us inquire, challenge, decry! (We must also not forget that other great conceit: look at how tolerant we are! see how open-minded we can be! look at the depth of our understanding!)

Is Lee Bollinger really a fighter? Is he really courageous? Yes, of course he is. At the very least, he is willing to speak in a manner that might offend supporters of the Iranian president who live, work and study in the west, particularly on the west side of Manhattan. But is insulting a guest in one's own parlor anything like a bold confrontation, particularly when the guest expects it, even desires it? What about Mr. Bollinger traveling to Tehran to berate the Iranian president? What about him standing in Mr. Ahmadinejad's own parlor and pompously declaring his Iranian host "uneducated"?

What I am ultimately saying is that I fear some Americans think the country has now "dealt" with Mr. Ahmadinejad, that we have torn off his mask, shown him to the world as an ego-maniacal simpleton, and sent him on his way, duly chastised, duly warned. We have faced evil, confronted it, stared it down; we have shown evil and ignorance the face of goodness and knowledge.

But we have done no such thing at all.

Secondly, we have ineluctably fallen prey to a new mythology: The Iranian president came to America in peace, but the peacemaker was mocked, abused, ridiculed! He came with an olive branch, but he will leave having been scourged with that very symbol of peace! The fodder for propaganda is perhaps now even more abundant than ever. Had Mr. Ahmadinejad been kept at a safe distance, his propaganda could only reach so far. But now he has proof -- soundbites and vidclips -- that America is a capricious host, a divided and unfriendly place, full of spies (he called one reporter a CIA interrogator), dripping with sarcasm, antagonistic towards peace. He is that peace; his is a peaceful nation.

How sad, even tragic -- or so the chorus will sing -- that America -- and its Jewish constituency, no doubt -- should have rejected a 'noble' man bringing such a noble, gentle peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

On Politics: The Voice Of Scott Ritter, The Iraq War, And Culpability

Scott Ritter, the former Marine and UN weapons inspector, was in town the other day, and I missed him. But I did not miss his interview with Laura Knoy, New Hampshire Public Radio personality and host of "The Exchange." And it was good that I did not miss it, for Mr. Ritter stated something so rarely heard that it is nearly heroic in its startling frankness.

Some readers here know that I have long held that the Iraq War is really -- at the very least -- now 17 years old. The Iraq conflict has roots in the first Bush administration; that administration led a large coalition of military forces into Kuwait and southern Iraq in Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Recall that part of the first George Bush's military stategy was to enlist world support by promising that the US and its allies would not enter Baghdad to depose Saddam Hussein. Of course, George Bush the First was defeated by a little known governor from Arkansas, Bill Clinton, in 1992; that popular Democrat would oversee the bombing of Iraq and enforce the near-draconian economic sanctions against that poor country for 8 years. Besides at least two military operations led against Iraq by President Clinton -- Operation Desert Strike (1996) and Operation Desert Fox (1998) -- President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act (1998), which called for "regime change" in Iraq, and he was the commander in chief when Osama bin Laden issued his death to "all Americans" fatwa, the very fatwa that led to the horrific and devastating attacks of September 11, 2001.

Excuse the history lesson, but it is imperative I repeat all this again -- and again. This morning, for the 1000th time, I read another letter to the editor in which it was stated, with all the pompous certainty of a sage on a cliff-top, that there was no connection at all between Iraq and 9/11. Of course, readers of this blog know that in fact there was a causal connection between those two things - a nation and a fateful day: Osama bin Laden attacked the US on 9/11 for its continued oppression of Iraq. He said so himself.

But that is not what is so enlightening in the refreshing (though incomplete) words of staunch Bush AND Clinton critic Scott Ritter. Unfortunately Ritter fails to make this simple connection between Iraq and 9/11; he is perhaps blinded to it by all the absurd rhetoric proffered by nearly everyone calling themselves liberal or Democrat. Even a couple of days ago, US Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), said from the Senate floor -- with all the finality of a renegade scientologist -- that America "in truth, [is] fighting a war with no cause." Cheered as a hero by her fans, Ms. Murray can only receive from me a sighing jeer, for she knows not what she is saying at all. (A war with "no cause?" Perhaps Ms. Murray can enlighten us all to the nuances of her ontological theory on causeless actions as a keynote speaker at the next DNC convention.) Perhaps the blindness of Ms. Murray has blinded more folks than Scott Ritter, but that is beside the point. The point is that Mr. Ritter debunks with one fell swoop the idea that the current Iraq conflict is "Bush's War."

Here is what Mr. Ritter said on Wednesday during a live interview on NH Public Radio. I have transcribed it directly from the NHPR website's podcast feature found at this link. Note that the context is Mr. Ritter's conviction that the United States is poised to begin aerial assaults on key Iranian targets; Mr. Ritter was in New Hampshire promoting his forthcoming book, Target Iran.

[minute 14:16]

Laura Knoy (LK): You said that your concern started under the Clinton Administration. Just briefly, Scott, what were your concerns back then about US Middle East policy?

Scott Ritter (SR): Well, in particular about Iraq, the main concern was that we had a policy of regime change disguised as a policy of disarmament that --

LK: So regime change has been on the books for a while, it’s not just President Bush?

SR: Absolutel-- it’s been, it’s been ingrained in American policy objectives in the Middle East for decades now.

LK: And with Clinton, you said that it was a policy of regime change disguised as inspections. Can you just briefly explain what you mean there, because, again, I don’t think some people would know what the connection is.

SR: After the First Gulf War, the United Nations at the behest of the United States imposed economic sanctions on Iraq that were linked to Iraq’s disarmament obligation. The deal was if Iraq disarmed, the sanctions would be lifted. From an American policy perspective, the sanctions were about the containment and destabilization of Saddam Hussein until which time he could be removed from power. Inspections work if they help push that policy along by showing that Iraq is not in compliance. The danger comes when inspections start to show that Iraq is complying, and that’s what we were starting to do as inspectors; showing that Iraq was disarmed: We [the inspectors] became the threat to US policy. So the US interfered with the inspection process to denigrate what we were doing in order to continue the policy of sanctions-based containment leading to regime change. The Clinton Administration always talked about supporting the inspectors, supporting disarmament, but that wasn’t their policy. Their policy was regime change. The inspections actually became the enemy. We saw this with Bush in Iraq leading up to the war, where we had inspectors on the ground contradicting every piece of information the CIA put out about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. If we were truly concerned about disarmament, we would have let the inspectors do their job. The policy was regime change.

LK: And now make the connection with Iran, again: inspections as a cover for the real goal which was regime change.

SR: It’s the exact same pattern played over again. The case for military intervention is being made based on a weapons of mass destruction-type threat being brought out from Iran, in this case nuclear weapons. We have inspectors on the ground; their reports are published at the International Atomic Energy Agency’s website accessible by everybody. Read the technical reports; the IAEA clearly states that there is no evidence whatsoever coming from their work that sustains the allegations that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program --

[emphasis added, as was link to IAEA]

While Mr. Ritter fails to make the Iraq/bin Laden/9-11 connection I have repeatedly made here, he nevertheless jars the New Hampshire audience with his blunt words: Bill Clinton was NOT trying to appease and contain Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The Clinton theoria was inspections; but its praxis was always regime change. And THAT is why Osama bin Laden issued his death decree to all Americans during Bill Clinton's presidency: Clinton was unduly oppressing the Iraqis not because he wanted them to disarm, but because he wanted something more.

And that is why I believe the revisionists who deny this real and indisputable connection are treasonous. They may love their country -- whatever national ideal it is they adore -- but they are undeniably traitors of the truth.

By the way. When did Scott Ritter resign as a weapons inspector? That's right. In 1998, the year the proverbial crap hit the Clinton fan. And this Wikipedia entry (we are all aware that Wikipedia is not infallible) is great reading, especially in light of current political posturing and campaigning:

On September 3, 1998, several days after his resignation, Ritter testified before the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services and the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and said that he resigned his position "out of frustration that the United Nations Security Council, and the United States as its most significant supporter, was failing to enforce the post-Gulf War resolutions designed to disarm Iraq."

During Ritter's Senate testimony about the inspection process, Senator Joseph Biden [D-MD] stated "The decision of whether or not the country should go to war is slightly above your pay grade." Senator John McCain [R-AZ] later rebutted by stating that he "wished that the administration had consulted with somebody of Ritter's pay grade during the Vietnam War."

The adage is true. You can't make this stuff up at all.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

There Is No Bias:saiB oN sI erehT

George W. Bush is your worst enemy; we all know that W stands for Warmonger, and that hidden in his first name is a slightly twisted ogre. Bush the Menace.

Or so says Newsweek.

Shake your head to clear your eyes, if you must, as you look at Newsweek's newest cover: that is Bush the Bellicose glaring Middle-Eastward, eyes like warheads aimed at the Persian Prince of Peace.

One thing I am certain of is this: that in Iran, Newsweek's headline is not "The Hidden War with Iran." Instead, the Tehran edition is headlined thusly: "The Hidden -- and not so Hidden -- War with America." Wait. No. Scratch that. How foolish of me. Newsweek has it right: 'Tis Bush who has been boasting about his nation's great fate; about the absurdity of the Holocaust and the porcine Jews† who hold the earth enslaved by a mythology that fuels Zionism's many fires. 'Tis Bush who wants to usher in the New Age of the 12th Imam, a caliphate and an Eden somewhere between the Tigris-Euphrates and the edges of the earth. The four angels guarding the ancient gates of Eden are relieved of their weary duty; all through Persia run rivers of gold rhetoric, and there waters are Mahdi: peace is indeed rolling, like the thunder of nuclear detonation. And Bush shall lead us home: he is the Bush that burns with war and never leaves.

Alas, again, I am mistaken, even delirious. My first response to the Newsweek cover was utterly errant. It is not the crazed man to the left who is warring against you, me, the very foundations of Western thought. No, it is Bush. The man on the right. You know, the wrong man on the Right; the Christian Right, all broken and jumbled up, full of petty menace, and all very wrong.

Newsweek and MSNBC, allies under the same Great Peacock, can't expect us to divine -- without their journalistic help -- that Mr. Ahmadinejad, ever speaking in gracious and dulcet tones, is a man of peace with sober eyes and waiting smile.

Perhaps the 12th Imam is that man from Illinois, who has fallen from the sky. His name means "blessed."

Peace.

BG

†This is not to be construed as an anti-Semitic slur on my part. I aim to faithfully and sardonically report Mr. Ahmadinejad's attitude.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.