NEXT BAUAW MEETING:

SUNDAY, OCTOBER 3, 3:00 p.m.
1380 Valencia Street
(Between 24th & 25th Streets, S.F.)

---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

VOTE YES ON PROP. 'N'! BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!

Come to the
BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW COMMITTEE MEETING
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 7:00 p.m.
AFSC - First Floor
65 NINTH STREET
(1/2 block from Market St., SF)

Help get the word out about Prop. 'N'. Bring your ideas for
community outreach, media, action, and more to make sure
we win by a landslide!

No matter who wins the elections this year, the war will not
be over. This ballot initiative will set the example for cities across
the country to do the same in future elections.

Pick up material to distribute!*

PROPOSITION 'N' ON THE NOVEMBER 3
SAN FRANCISCO BALLOT DECLARES:

"It is the policy of the people of the City and County of
San Francisco that: The Federal government should take
immediate steps to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq and
bring our troops safely home now."

Visit: www.yesonn.net

* Material costs money. Already thousands of brochures have
been printed and we need more! We need posters and buttons--
we need to cover the city with YES on 'N' campaign material!

Please send a contribution to help with these costs!
Make your check payable to:

Bring Our Troops Home Now

and mail to :

David Looman, Treasurer
325 Highland Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94110

---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

1) Gates Tops Forbes List of Richest in U.S. -- Again
Thu Sep 23, 2004 07:00 PM ET
NEW YORK (Reuters)

2) Don't Worry - It's Only a 'Soft Patch'
By John Peterson
http://www.socialistappeal.org/econnews/soft_patch.html

3) STATEMENT BY H.E. MR. FELIPE PÉREZ ROQUE, MINISTER
OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE REPUBLIC OF CUBA, AT THE
59TH SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
NEW YORK, 24 SEPTEMBER 2004.

4) Why We Cannot Win
By Al Lorentz
September 20, 2004
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/lorentz1.html

5) For the troops on the ground, Iraq might as well be Vietnam
September 20, 2004
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-ARMYPAPER-319026.php
[There is no name of author...BW]

6) Anguish over Iraq war resonates in Missouri
By Tim Jones, Tribune national correspondent
September 24, 2004
Chicago Tribune
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/chitribts/20040924/
ts_chicagotrib/anguishoveriraqwarresonatesinmissouri&cid=2027&ncid=1480

7) The Triple Crises in the U.S.
By James Petras
www.antiterroristas.cu/index.php?tpl=noticia/
anew¬iciaid=99¬iciafecha=2002-09-11

8) Clash Over Prisoners Exposes Power Struggle
US overrules Iraqi government plan to free women scientists
By Rory McCarthy in Baghdad
Published on Thursday, September 23, 2004 by the Guardian/UK
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0923-01.htm
9) US Hand Seen in Afghan Election
Some candidates say the embassy pressured them not to run a
gainst President Karzai
By Paul Watson
KABUL, Afghanistan
Published on Thursday, September 23, 2004
by the Los Angeles Times
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0923-26.htm

10) 100+ Organizing Centers for the Million Worker March!
Momentum is growing for the Million Worker March. There
are now more than 100 organizing centers across the
country as the word spreads and working people answer the
call to organizize in our own name.
http://www.AntiWar4theMillionWorkerMarch.org
***Become an organizer!

11) DROP THE DEBT! STOP THE WAR! WE DEMAND JUSTICE!

12) Who Is Ayad Allawi?
September 23, 2004

13) Mistrial in Pepper Spray Suit
Jurors Deadlock 6-2 in Favor of Demonstrators
By Bob Egelko
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0923-20.htm
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/23/
BAGHJ8T65U28.DTL

14) Subject: Mural dream...Idriss Stelley Foundation
From: Iolmisha@cs.com
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:05:14 EDT

15) Action Alert- "Anti-Semitism" Bill, Weapons Sale to Israel
From: "Middle East Children's Alliance"


---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

1) Gates Tops Forbes List of Richest in U.S. -- Again
Thu Sep 23, 2004 07:00 PM ET
NEW YORK (Reuters)

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Nasdaq may be well off its highs
of the dot-com era, but tech tycoons still top the list of the
wealthiest Americans.

For the 11th consecutive year, Microsoft Corp. co-founder
Bill Gates took first place on the "Forbes 400" list of the
richest people in the United States. Forbes magazine will
publish its annual list in its Oct. 11 issue.

Joining Gates in the top 10 are fellow tech titans Paul
Allen (No. 3), Michael Dell (No. 9) and Larry Ellison (No. 10).
Allen co-founded Microsoft, Dell is the founder and chairman of
Dell Inc., and Ellison is the co-founder and chief executive of
Oracle Corp. .

One of the year's most anticipated initial public offerings
helped Google Inc. founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page make
their debut on the list, tied for No. 43.

Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Michael Eisner dropped off
the list this year, but first lady hopeful Teresa Heinz Kerry
returned to it.

For the first time since 2000, the total net worth of the
richest Americans topped $1 trillion in 2004, up $45 billion
from last year. The list includes a record number of
billionaires at 313, or 78 percent of the list.

Legendary investor Warren Buffett remains in the No. 2
slot, adding $5 billion to his $41 billion in the past 12
months, the largest dollar increase seen this year. Rounding
out the top 10 are the five heirs to Sam Walton's Wal-Mart
Stores fortune, each with $18 billion.

Casino operator Steve Wynn was the biggest percentage
gainer this year, doubling his worth to $1.3 billion.
Amazon.com's Jeff Bezos dropped the most, losing $800 million,
but still ranked at No. 38.

Notably missing from this year's list is Disney's Eisner,
who earlier this week announced his intent to leave the
company's board when he steps down as CEO in 2006.

Also excluded is long-time list member buyout king Theodore
Forstmann, who suffered losses on his investments in XO
Communications and McLeodUSA .

Several family fortunes are included in the list for the
first time, including 10 members of the Pritzker family, heirs
to the Hyatt hotel chain, and five members of the S.C. Johnson
family, all of whom are billionaires.

Teresa Heinz Kerry, the wife of Democratic presidential
nominee John Kerry, returned to the list in 2004, with an
estimated inheritance of $750 million.

The youngest person on the list is 31-year-old Google
co-founder Brin, while the oldest is investor Max Fisher, 96,
with $775 million.

(c) Copyright Reuters 2004

---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

2) Don't Worry - It's Only a 'Soft Patch'
By John Peterson
http://www.socialistappeal.org/econnews/soft_patch.html

Alan Greenspan and the officers of the Federal Reserve Bank would
have us believe that "the fundamentals of the economy are very strong."
US GDP is still growing - albeit at its slowest pace in over a year - and
corporate profits are up 18 percent from a year earlier, at an annual
$898 billion. Although the stock market has its ups and downs, it has
recovered a substantial amount of the ground lost when the IT boom
collapsed in 2000. Generally speaking, all is rosy in the best of all
possible worlds - recent data suggesting the recovery is faltering
reflects nothing but a "soft patch" in Mr. Greenspan's opinion. This
may be the view from the heights of corporate and financial power,
but what's the reality for millions of workers down here on planet earth?

The real state of the economy is reflected in the following figures
from the U.S. Census Bureau:

The number of impoverished Americans grew by 1.3 million from
2002 to 2003 to 35.9 million. The number of Americans living
in poverty now stands at 12.5 percent, up from 21.1 percent in
2002. The poverty line is set at an annual income of $9,573 or
less for an individual, or $18,660 for a family of four with two
children. These official thresholds are unrealistic, and in reality,
the poverty rate is much higher.

The rate of child poverty rose to 17.6 percent from 16.7 percent in
2002 - boosting the number of poor children to 12.9 million.

The poverty rate of African Americans remained nearly twice the
national rate, with 24.4 percent of blacks living below the poverty
line in 2003, up from 24.1 percent a year earlier.

The number of Americans without health insurance increased by 1.4
million to 45 million, which represents 15.6 percent of the population.
Most of those who do have insurance have to pay exorbitant
premiums and co-pays, and often have to go to court to receive
health services covered by their plans.

In 1973, the wealthiest 20 percent of households accounted for 44
percent of total U.S. income. Their share jumped to 50 percent in
2002, while everyone else's fell. For the bottom fifth, the share
dropped from 4.2 percent to 3.5 percent.

The above figures make it clear the income gap between rich and
poor is expanding rapidly. This is graphically illustrated by booming
sales of luxury items. Porsche Cars North America Inc. says sales
are up 17 percent for the year. Strong sales at higher-end
department stores Neiman

Marcus, Nordstrom and Saks Fifth Avenue overshadow lackluster
sales at stores frequented by working people such as Wal-Mart,
Sears and Payless Shoes.

The truth is, most American workers are scratching their
heads and asking themselves the following question: "what
economic recovery?" The numbers that affect our day-to-day
lives are not so rosy. Inflation has risen over 3 percent in each
of the first two quarters of 2004, with the rise in food and energy
costs taking a further bite out of stagnant or shrinking real wages.
The cost of health care, tuition, and housing has also soared. The
consumer debt burden is unbearable, quality jobs are hard to find,
and as single mother Annie Clark recently put it, millions of
Americans live in a "perpetual state of panic financially."

According to Clark: "I barely make $10 an hour, and I get no health
insurance. I can't get through the week without an empty bank
account. I make generally between 10 and 11 grand a year - I make
nothing. I can't afford to be given a car. I won't have the money to
register it, to get the insurance, to do repairs; inflation is just eating
up my paycheck. There's no safety net, and there are so many people
who are so worse off than me." (Reported on Yahoo! News)

Ms. Clark's words are an eloquent and tragic summing up of the
situation facing millions of employed Americans, and for those out
of work the situation is often worse. Finding a low-paying "McJob"
is often seen as a bit of good fortune, and homelessness is a very
real fear for many who were lead to believe that a comfortable and
affordable home, 2 car garage, and white picket fence were a given
in America. Debbie Reames of Raytown, Missouri, whose bank job of
24 years was sent overseas in February, said the following in a recent
interview: "We're just trying to get ahead. But it seems like we climb
a few rungs and then we fall back again."

As we have explained in the past, the key to any real improvement
in the situation is job creation. But the capitalists are not in the
business of creating jobs; they are in the business of making money.
If they can increase profits with fewer workers by making their
existing employees work longer and squeezing more out of them
in the same amount of time, they will do that rather than invest in
productive capacity or new job positions. It's true that more than a
million jobs have been added back to the nearly 3 million lost since
Bush took office, but they pay less, are less secure, and offer fewer
benefits, such as health insurance. Most new jobs are concentrated
in health care, food services, and temporary employment firms, all
lower-paying industries. Temp agencies alone account for about a
fifth of all new jobs. Three in five pay below the national median
hourly wage of $13.53. On a weekly basis, the average wage of
$525.84 is at the lowest level since October 2001.

This situation has little to do with which big-business political
party is in power, but rather with the organically dysfunctional
nature of the capitalist system itself. According to Sung Won Sohn,
chief economist of Wells Fargo Bank, "This really has nothing to
do with Bush or Kerry, but more to do with the longer-term shift
in the structure of the economy."

The capitalist system always has its ups and downs, but in the
current period, the overall trend is downward - the booms are
weak and uneven and don't make up for the losses suffered
during the slumps. Working people have it nearly as bad during
the "booms" as during the slumps. If this is a "soft patch", what
will happen to millions of workers when the economy inevitably
sinks back into a full-blown recession at some point in the future?

American workers are very pragmatic, energetic, and creative
when looking for ways to get things done. Annie Clark proposes
some very basic and reasonable solutions to the crisis facing
millions like her: "What could help me get out of this is universal
health care. What could get me out of this is fairness in the taxing
situation." However, these apparently simple solutions cannot be
implemented without the most ferocious resistance on behalf of
the ruling class. The profit-based capitalist system cannot
significantly improve our living standards. On the contrary, the
bosses have launched an all-out offensive against the gains we
have struggled for in the past. Workers make up the vast majority
of American society. We need to build a real alternative that can
truly address our class interests and solve the dire crisis confronting
us. That alternative is socialism.

Economic News

---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

3) STATEMENT BY H.E. MR. FELIPE PÉREZ ROQUE, MINISTER OF
FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE REPUBLIC OF CUBA, AT THE 59TH
SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
NEW YORK, 24 SEPTEMBER 2004.

Mr. President:

Every year at the United Nations we go through the same ritual. We
attend the general debate knowing beforehand that the clamor for
justice and peace by our underdeveloped countries will be ignored
once again. However, we persist. We know that we are right. We know
that one day we will accomplish social justice and development. We
also know that such assets will not be given away to us. We know
that the peoples will have to seize them from those who deny us
justice today, because they underpin their wealth and arrogance on
the disdain for our grief. But it will not be always like this. We
say so today with more conviction than ever before.

Having said this and knowing – as we do – that some powerful ones,
just a few, present here will be chagrined, and also knowing that
they are shared by many, Cuba will now tell some truths:

First: After the aggression on Iraq, there is no United Nations
Organization, understood as a useful and diverse forum, based on the
respect for the rights of all and also with guarantees for the small
States.

It is living through the worst moment of its already forthcoming 60
years. It pales, it pants, it feigns, but it does not work.

Who handcuffed the United Nations named by President Roosevelt?
President Bush.

Second: US troops will have to be withdrawn from Iraq.

After the life of over 1,000 American youths was uselessly
sacrificed to serve the spurious interests of a clique of cronies
and buddies, and following the death of more than 12,000 Iraqis, it
is clear that the only way out for the occupying power faced with a
revolting people is to recognize the impossibility of subduing them
and to withdraw. In spite of the imperial monopoly over information,
the peoples always get to the truth. Someday, those responsible and
their accomplices will have to deal with the consequences of their
actions in the face of History and their own peoples.

Third: For the time being, there will be no valid, real and useful
reform to the United Nations.

It would take the superpower, which inherited the immense
prerogative of governing an order conceived for a bipolar world, to
relinquish its privileges. And it will not do so.

Since now, we know that the anachronistic privilege of the veto will
remain; that the Security Council will not be democratized as it
should or expanded to include Third World countries; that the
General Assembly will continue to stand ignored and that at the
United Nations there will be more actions driven by the interests
imposed by the superpower and its allies. We, as non-aligned
countries, will have to entrench ourselves in defending the United
Nations Charter – because, otherwise, it will be redrafted with the
deletion of every trace of principles such as the sovereign equality
of States, non-intervention and the non-use or the threat to use
force.

Fourth: The powerful collude to divide us.

The over 130 underdeveloped countries must build a common front for
the defense of the sacred interests of our peoples, of our right to
development and peace. Let us revitalize the Non-Aligned Movement.
Let us strengthen the G-77.

Fifth: The modest objectives of the Millennium Declaration will not
be accomplished. We will reach the fifth anniversary of the Summit
in a worse situation.

• We endeavored to halve by 2015 the 1.276 billion human
beings in abject poverty that existed in 1990. There had to be a
yearly reduction of 46 million poor people. However, excluding
China, between 1990 and 2000 extreme poverty rose by 28 million
people. Impoverishment does not decline, it grows.

• We wanted to halve by 2015 the 842 million starving people
recorded in the world. There had to be a yearly reduction of 28
million. However, there has barely been a reduction of 2.1 million
hungry people per year. At this rate, the goal would be attained by
2215, two hundred years after what was envisaged – and only if our
species survives the destruction of its environment.

• We proclaimed the aspiration to achieve universal primary
education by 2015. However, more than 120 million children, 1 in
every 5 in that school age, do not attend primary school. According
to UNICEF, at the current rate the goal will be accomplished after
2100.

• We endeavored to reduce by two-thirds the mortality rate in
children under five years of age. The reduction is symbolic: out of
86 children who died per 1,000 live births in 1998, now the figure
is 82. Every year, 11 million children continue to die of diseases
that can be prevented or cured, whose parents will rightfully wonder
what our meetings are for.

• We said that we would pay attention to Africa's special
needs. However, very little has been done. African nations do not
need foreign advice or models, but financial resources and access to
both markets and technologies. Assisting Africa would not be an act
of charity, but an act of justice; it would be tantamount to
settling the historical debt resulting from centuries of
exploitation and pillage.

• We undertook to put a halt to and start reverting the AIDS
pandemic by 2015. However, in 2003 it claimed nearly 3 million
lives. At this rate, by 2015 some 36 million people will have died
of this cause.

Sixth: Creditor countries and the international financial agencies
will not seek a just and lasting solution to the foreign debt.

They prefer to keep us in debt; that is, vulnerable. Therefore, even
though we have paid off US$ 4.1 trillion in debt service over the
last 13 years, our debt increased from US$ 1.4 trillion to US$ 2.6
trillion. It means that we have paid three times what we owed and
now our debt is twice as much.

Seventh: We, as underdeveloped countries, are the ones that finance
the squandering and the opulence of developed countries.

While in 2003 they gave us US$ 68.400 billion in ODA, we delivered
to them US$ 436 billion as payment for the foreign debt. Who is
helping who?

Eighth: The fight against terrorism can only be won through
cooperation among all nations and with respect for International
Law, and not through massive bombings or pre-emptive wars
against "dark corners of the world."

Hypocrisy and double standards must cease. Sheltering three Cuban-
born terrorists in the United States is an act of complicity to
terrorism. Punishing five Cuban youths who were fighting terrorism,
and punishing their families, is a crime.

Ninth: General and complete disarmament, including nuclear
disarmament, is impossible today. It is the responsibility of a
group of developed countries that are the ones that most sell and
buy weapons.

However, we must continue to strive for it. We must demand that the
over US$ 900 billion set aside every year for military expenditures
be used on development; and

Tenth: The financial resources to guarantee the sustainable
development for all the peoples on the planet are available, but
what is lacking is the political will of those who rule the world.

A development tax of merely 0.1% on international financial
transactions would generate resources amounting to almost US$ 400
billion per annum.

The cancellation of the foreign debt incurred by underdeveloped
countries would allow these to have available for their development
no less than US$ 436 billion on a yearly basis – money which is
currently used to pay off the debt.

If developed countries complied with their commitment to set aside
0.7% of their Gross National Product as ODA, their contribution
would increase from the current US$ 68.400 billion to US$ 160
billion per annum.

Finally, Excellencies, I want to clearly express Cuba's profound
conviction that the 6.4 billion human beings on this planet – who
have equal rights according to the United Nations Charter – urgently
need a new order in which the world is not left in suspense, as is
the case now, awaiting the outcome of the elections in a new Rome in
which only half the voters will participate and nearly US$ 1.5
billion will be spent.

There is no discouragement in our words, I must say so clearly. We
are optimistic because we are revolutionaries. We have faith in the
struggle of the peoples and we are certain that we will accomplish a
new world order based on the respect for the rights of all; an order
based on solidarity, justice and peace, resulting from the best of
universal culture and not from mediocrity or gross force.

About Cuba, which cannot be detoured from its course by blockades,
threats, hurricanes, droughts or human or natural force, I will not
say anything.

Next 28 October, for the 13th time, this General Assembly will
debate and vote on a resolution about the blockade imposed against
the Cuban people. Once again, morality and principles will defeat
arrogance and force.

I would like to conclude by recalling the words spoken right here 25
years ago by President Fidel Castro:

"The noise of weapons, of the menacing language, of the haughtiness
on the international scene must cease. Enough of the illusion that
the problems of the world can be solved by nuclear weapons. Bombs
may kill the hungry, the sick and the ignorant, but bombs cannot
kill hunger, disease and ignorance. Nor can bombs kill the righteous
rebellion of the people…"

Thank you very much.

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://asia.groups.yahoo.com/group/Marxists/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Marxists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://asia.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms

---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

4) Why We Cannot Win
By Al Lorentz
September 20, 2004
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/lorentz1.html

Before I begin, let me state that I am a soldier currently deployed in
Iraq, I am not an armchair quarterback. Nor am I some politically
idealistic and naïve young soldier, I am an old and seasoned
Non-Commissioned Officer with nearly 20 years under my belt. Additionally,
I am not just a soldier with a muds-eye view of the war, I am in Civil
Affairs and as such, it is my job to be aware of all the events occurring
in this country and specifically in my region.

I have come to the conclusion that we cannot win here for a number of
reasons. Ideology and idealism will never trump history and reality.

When we were preparing to deploy, I told my young soldiers to beware of the
"political solution." Just when you think you have the situation on the
ground in hand, someone will come along with a political directive that
throws you off the tracks.

I believe that we could have won this un-Constitutional invasion of Iraq
and possibly pulled off the even more un-Constitutional occupation and
subjugation of this sovereign nation. It might have even been possible to
foist democracy on these people who seem to have no desire, understanding
or respect for such an institution. True the possibility of pulling all
this off was a long shot and would have required several hundred billion
dollars and even more casualties than we've seen to date but again it would
have been possible, not realistic or necessary but possible.

Here are the specific reasons why we cannot win in Iraq.

First, we refuse to deal in reality. We are in a guerilla war, but because
of politics, we are not allowed to declare it a guerilla war and must label
the increasingly effective guerilla forces arrayed against us as
"terrorists, criminals and dead-enders."

This implies that there is a zero sum game at work, i.e. we can simply kill
X number of the enemy and then the fight is over, mission accomplished,
everybody wins. Unfortunately, this is not the case. We have few tools at
our disposal and those are proving to be wholly ineffective at fighting the
guerillas.

The idea behind fighting a guerilla army is not to destroy its every man
(an impossibility since he hides himself by day amongst the populace).
Rather the idea in guerilla warfare is to erode or destroy his base of
support.

So long as there is support for the guerilla, for every one you kill two
more rise up to take his place. More importantly, when your tools for
killing him are precision guided munitions, raids and other acts that
create casualties among the innocent populace, you raise the support for
the guerillas and undermine the support for yourself. (A 500-pound
precision bomb has a casualty-producing radius of 400 meters minimum; do
the math.)

Second, our assessment of what motivates the average Iraqi was skewed,
again by politically motivated "experts." We came here with some fantasy
idea that the natives were all ignorant, mud-hut dwelling camel riders who
would line the streets and pelt us with rose petals, lay palm fronds in the
street and be eternally grateful. While at one time there may have actually
been support and respect from the locals, months of occupation by our
regular military forces have turned the formerly friendly into the recently
hostile.

Attempts to correct the thinking in this regard are in vain; it is not
politically correct to point out the fact that the locals are not only
disliking us more and more, they are growing increasingly upset and often
overtly hostile. Instead of addressing the reasons why the locals are
becoming angry and discontented, we allow politicians in Washington DC to
give us pat and convenient reasons that are devoid of any semblance of
reality.

We are told that the locals are not upset because we have a hostile,
aggressive and angry Army occupying their nation. We are told that they are
not upset at the police state we have created, or at the manner of picking
their representatives for them. Rather we are told, they are upset because
of a handful of terrorists, criminals and dead enders in their midst have
made them upset, that and of course the ever convenient straw man of "left
wing media bias."

Third, the guerillas are filling their losses faster than we can create
them. This is almost always the case in guerilla warfare, especially when
your tactics for battling the guerillas are aimed at killing guerillas
instead of eroding their support. For every guerilla we kill with a "smart
bomb" we kill many more innocent civilians and create rage and anger in the
Iraqi community. This rage and anger translates into more recruits for the
terrorists and less support for us.

We have fallen victim to the body count mentality all over again. We have
shown a willingness to inflict civilian casualties as a necessity of war
without realizing that these same casualties create waves of hatred against
us. These angry Iraqi citizens translate not only into more recruits for
the guerilla army but also into more support of the guerilla army.

Fourth, their lines of supply and communication are much shorter than ours
and much less vulnerable. We must import everything we need into this
place; this costs money and is dangerous. Whether we fly the supplies in or
bring them by truck, they are vulnerable to attack, most especially those
brought by truck. This not only increases the likelihood of the supplies
being interrupted. Every bean, every bullet and every bandage becomes
infinitely more expensive.

Conversely, the guerillas live on top of their supplies and are showing
every indication of developing a very sophisticated network for obtaining
them. Further, they have the advantage of the close support of family and
friends and traditional religious networks.

Fifth, we consistently underestimate the enemy and his capabilities. Many
military commanders have prepared to fight exactly the wrong war here.

Our tactics have not adjusted to the battlefield and we are falling behind.

Meanwhile the enemy updates his tactics and has shown a remarkable
resiliency and adaptability.

Because the current administration is more concerned with its image than it
is with reality, it prefers symbolism to substance: soldiers are dying here
and being maimed and crippled for life. It is tragic, indeed criminal that
our elected public servants would so willingly sacrifice our nation's
prestige and honor as well as the blood and treasure to pursue an agenda
that is ahistoric and un-Constitutional.

It is all the more ironic that this un-Constitutional mission is being
performed by citizen soldiers such as myself who swore an oath to uphold
and defend the Constitution of the United States, the same oath that the
commander in chief himself has sworn.

Al Lorentz [alorentz@truevine.net] is former state chairman of the
Constitution Party of Texas and is a reservist currently serving with the
US Army in Iraq.

---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

5) For the troops on the ground, Iraq might as well be Vietnam
September 20, 2004
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-ARMYPAPER-319026.php
[There is no name of author...BW]

Anyone who studies how certain kinds of war fighting affect the human
psyche would have already figured out what the New England Journal of
Medicine reported recently: that "many of our troops in Iraq are
struggling" with the dark psychiatric fallout from this conflict.

After surveying thousands of soldiers and Marines, the Journal authors
concluded that "roughly one in six show signs of distress - ranging from
anxiety, all the way to full-blown post-traumatic stress disorder."

For me, a Vietnam veteran and former counselor in the Veterans
Administration's Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Counseling Program, the
study's conclusions were predictable and betray a sad truth about the Iraq
war. For the boots on the ground, it might as well be Vietnam.

Highly regarded PTSD researcher John P. Wilson of Cleveland State
University, who studied the psychological aftereffects of Vietnam, tells me
he is also gravely concerned. Wilson sees the Iraq war as a perfect petri
dish for culturing residual psychological problems among our troops.

He posits that the rate for various forms of distress in troops engaged in
Operation Iraqi Freedom combat operations will be even higher than reported
in the Journal study- and that they could go as high as 30 percent.

Such dire predictions are supported by an understandable limitation in the
Journal study's methodology. The authors admit their survey included data
from troops who had been home from Iraq for "only a few months." This
probably means that their figures are artificially low - they don't reflect
cases that will emerge over time. Some Vietnam veterans didn't manifest
symptoms of PTSD until years after their return to the United States.

"There is a perception in this country that the young people fighting in
Iraq will return home, take off their uniforms and pick up where they left
off," Wilson told me. "The relentless stressors during their Iraq
deployment tell us that for thousands of them, this isn't going to happen
without therapeutic intervention."

A table attached to the Journal study suggests that fighting in Iraq
mirrors some of the soul-destroying horrors experienced by my generation.
Titled "Combat Experiences Reported by Members of the U.S. Army and Marine
Corps after Deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan," it is a chilling document
and offers the first real taste of what life is like for our country's
troops.

It indicates that of the soldiers and Marines serving in Iraq and surveyed
by the investigators, 89 percent and 95 percent, respectively, report
having being attacked or ambushed. The vast majority know someone who has
been seriously injured or killed; 69 percent of soldiers and 83 percent of
Marines saw ill or injured women and children they were unable to help.

Perhaps worst of all, 14 percent of soldiers and 28 percent of Marines
reported that they "experienced being responsible for the death of a
non-combatant." The high number of harrowing episodes occurred for troops
whose maximum stay in Iraq had been only six to eight months.

What may drive the levels of PTSD far beyond what we saw in Vietnam is the
imposition of stop-loss on soldiers who already have witnessed more than
their fair share of traumatic and stress-inducing events. Some troops in
Iraq will likely end up serving tours far longer than their predecessors in
Vietnam.

Underpinning it all is a lesson from Vietnam that it seems this country has
yet to learn: It is psychiatric folly to send American troops into combat
in service of shaky foreign policy initiatives. Many Iraqi Freedom troops
likely carried with them strongly held convictions that they were keeping
the world safe from Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam
was connected to al-Qaida and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11.

Now that the reasons for their mission are losing credibility, some
soldiers will question the legitimacy of being there at all. When this
happens, another set of psychological stressors takes hold as soldiers
struggle internally to attach a redemptive meaning to their hellish war
experience.

For those of us who counseled the psychiatric casualties who came home from
Vietnam, it is painful to watch as history repeats itself.

The writer was a combat medic in Vietnam. He was also a counselor in the
then-Veterans Administration's Vietnam Veterans' Readjustment Counseling
Program. He now is with the Alliance for Security, a program of the Vietnam
Veterans of America Foundation in Washington. He can be reached at
afs@vi.org. For more on the foundation, log on to www.alliance
forsecurity.org.

---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

6) Anguish over Iraq war resonates in Missouri
By Tim Jones, Tribune national correspondent
September 24, 2004
Chicago Tribune
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/chitribts/20040924/
ts_chicagotrib/anguishoveriraqwarresonatesinmissouri&cid=2027&ncid=1480

Carroll Meierer was all for getting rid of Saddam Hussein .
"We had to do something," she said.

But 18 months of war and more than 1,000 American fatalities
later, the resolution she felt about Hussein has turned to grim
resignation about the state of the war.

"We could stay there forever and it wouldn't be any different," she
said at the little red fruit stand she runs on the edge of Lexington,
about 30 miles east of Kansas City.

Meierer, who grew up in a military family, is losing patience with
the war. Her 20-year-old son, Justin, a lance corporal in the Marine
Corps, is likely headed to Iraq early next year.

"He's my baby boy and he's my best friend," she said. "I want this
war over and I want it over NOW."

In Missouri, the debates over Iraq and the fight against terrorism
have lost much of the moral and patriotic clarity that defined last
year's march to Baghdad. American flags hanging from houses aren't
as plentiful. Neither are yard signs that say, "Support our troops."

As prospects for Iraq's political stability seem to fade, frustration,
anger, cynicism and bewilderment have seeped into arguments about
the war, fueled by reminders that--for some--have become incendiary:
Weapons of mass destruction. "Mission Accomplished." "Bring 'em on."
Osama bin Laden .

In Missouri, a key battleground state that mirrors much of the nation
demographically and has the uncanny knack of picking presidential
winners, President Bush is leading Sen. John Kerry in the most recent
public opinion polls. Kerry, to the surprise of the Bush campaign, even
pulled back his television advertising in the state.

Yet the poll numbers and campaign stratagems do not reflect the
roiling mix of often anguished feelings about Iraq. Voters--even
those who supported the war--are in turmoil over the purpose of
the conflict, whether it is part of the war on terror, whether it is
winnable anytime soon and whether it has made America safer.

"I don't know how it's our responsibility to fix Iraq when we can't
even handle things here," Meierer said.

The war became the dominant theme in the presidential campaign
this week, with the election a little more than five weeks away. And
it is likely to be Topic A in the first debate between Bush and Kerry
next Thursday in Florida.

Churchill's call

It was nearly six decades ago that Winston Churchill delivered his
famous "Iron Curtain" speech at Westminster College in Fulton, Mo.
But this April, that small college was the setting for some of the
campaign's earliest partisan sniping over security.

Vice President Dick Cheney set the tone when he questioned Kerry's
fitness to be president in such difficult times. "The senator from
Massachusetts has given us ample grounds to doubt the judgment
and the attitude he brings to bear on vital issues of national security,"
Cheney said.

On Monday, Kerry warned that if Bush is re-elected, he will
"repeat . . . the same reckless mistakes that have made America
less secure than we can or should be."

Not since citizens in coastal communities turned off their lights
and patrolled shorelines more than 60 years ago to watch for German
and Japanese submarines have voters been so emotionally focused
on security within their borders.

The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks created tremendous insecurity for
Americans and instilled national unity against terrorism. Now Bush
argues vociferously that Iraq is part of the war on terrorism. Kerry
says they are not only separate, but that Bush's prosecution of the
war has been a disaster and has drained resources from the fight
on terror, making the nation less safe.

Bush and Kerry rely mainly on generalities about how they will
make us safer. And they don't say when or how the war will be
concluded.

In the absence of specific answers, fear of one sort or another--
what might happen in Iraq or another country, what might happen
at some unsuspecting location in the United States, even in middle
America--has taken root.

On Sept. 7, the same day Bush declared in the Kansas City suburb
of Lee's Summit that "America and the world are safer" as a result
of removing Hussein from power, Cheney told Republicans at a
fundraiser in Des Moines that there's a greater danger of another
domestic terrorist attack if Americans elect Kerry.

Cheney's remark has prompted Rev. Robert Hill, pastor of the
Community Christian Church in Kansas City, to prepare a sermon
for this Sunday on the "politics of fear."

"These are the tactics of fear-mongering, and they are absolutely
despicable," Hill said.

Bush, who won the state by about 3.5 percentage points in 2000,
has visited Missouri nine times this year, while Kerry has campaigned
here 12 times since March. Recent polls have shown Bush extending
his lead in the state. But Missourians remain split on the war,
suggesting that they are not necessarily assigning blame to the
president.

"We should have gone over there and flattened the country," said
Diane Wolf, a florist in the St. Louis suburb of Pagedale, speaking
of Afghanistan , Iraq or "whoever did 9/11."

But Meierer, who blames Bush for the situation in Iraq, said, "These
guys shouldn't be over there."

The war in Iraq and the battle against terrorism are "totally separate,"
she said.

Nona Sanders, a travel agent in St. Joseph, disagreed, saying, "Iraq
and terrorism are connected, and we can't just quit."

Criticism of the war and Bush are not right and should not be
publicized, Sanders said.

Hogwash, said Albert Vandendaele, a retired farmer from North
Kansas City. "Now if anybody speaks out against it, you're
unpatriotic," he said. "I have a yellow ribbon on my truck. I
support the troops. Who doesn't? But does that mean you've
got to support Bush also? No. No."

While there is no agreement on either the claim of safety or
the charge from Cheney, there is plenty of anguish in Missouri
about the war--what it has accomplished, where it is headed
and whether it has made America safer.

"A lot of people just don't know, they don't have a solid opinion,"
said Rep. Ike Skelton, a staunch supporter of the Pentagon and
the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee.

Skelton, who has represented the increasingly Republican 4th
congressional district in western Missouri since 1977, said, "A
lot of people are just asking questions. I think there is deep
concern."

What people think about the war here could prove important in
November. In many ways Missouri is an amalgam of America--
an uneasy confluence of urban and rural, North and South.

Veterans make up 14 percent of Missouri's adult population,
the highest state percentage in the Midwest and two points
higher than the national average. And western Missouri is
steeped in military history. It was the Missouri theater of the
bloody battleground with Kansas over slavery. William Quantrill,
the guerrilla fighter, terrorized the region.

The southern part of Skelton's congressional district is home to
Ft. Leonard Wood, a key Army training facility, and Whiteman Air
Force Base, the launchpad for B-2s flying bombing missions to
Afghanistan. In Independence, production has been cranked up
at the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant, the military's largest
producer of small-arms ammunition. The plant is operating at
near full capacity, on track to manufacture 1.2 billion rounds
this year, its highest output since the Vietnam War, and a clear
measure of the intensity of the conflict in Iraq.

Skelton is part of the region's military heritage. The Skelton
family has two children on military active duty.

But Skelton, now 72, has long had doubts about the war. In a
letter to the White House in September 2002, when Congress
was considering Bush's request to authorize military action in
Iraq, Skelton said, "I have no doubt that our military would
decisively defeat Iraq's forces and remove Saddam. But like
the proverbial dog chasing the car down the road, we must
consider what we would do after we caught it."

Those kinds of questions are a daily concern in tiny Missouri
City, where two homes in particular, one on Walnut Street and
the other on Main, bear yellow ribbons and American flags,
public reminders that children who once lived here are far
away and too close to danger.

The war in Iraq has put the mayor and school superintendent
into separate camps. Ray Lynn, mayor of this town of 295, has
a son, Jeremy, stationed in Tikrit, Iraq, Hussein's hometown.
Mayor Lynn is steadfast: Going to war was the right thing to do.

Jay Jackson, the school superintendent--and bus driver--in
this one-building district of 41 students, has two sons in the
Army. Aaron is in Kuwait and Miles returned from Iraq in May.
Jay Jackson is adamant: The war is a huge blunder.

`The pain is just too great'

Their homes sport the flags and the ribbons, and the men
endure the well-meaning remarks of friends who tell them,
"We're praying for your son." Neither man served in the military
himself. Lynn, an autoworker, chafes at criticism he hears from
co-workers about Bush and the war. Jackson is discreet about
airing his views. When the two get together, as they do in the
front yard of the Civil War-era house that Jackson is restoring,
their friendship and delicate diplomacy govern the relationship.

"We talk about our boys, how they're doing," Jackson said. "We
don't talk about the war, the policy and the conduct of it. The
pain is just too great."

In the privacy of living rooms, though, the divisions come out.
Lynn sits near a color photo of son Jeremy, daughter Heather
and their spouses. All four are wearing dress green Army uniforms.
Attacking Iraq "definitely needed to be done" because Hussein was
a "player in terror" and represented a threat to the U.S., Lynn said.

Lynn is convinced there are weapons of mass destruction. He is
sure they will be found and the decision to go after Hussein will
be vindicated

"I have to trust that George Bush is doing the right thing. He is a
godly man," said Lynn's wife, Wanda, sitting in a rocker with an
American flag comforter. "We're all praying, and it's real hard."

War protests, especially those involving entertainers, push her
over the edge.

"They make me angry as hell. They obviously don't have a child
in the military. It sickens me," she said. "I just wish Hollywood
would drop off the face of the Earth. They're tearing down the
morale of our children."

The Lynns believe the war in Iraq and the war against terrorism
are one and the same. They believe the job should be finished.
They will vote for Bush.

The Lynns also agree with Cheney and his charge that America
would be more vulnerable under Kerry.

"Kerry wants to make us a sitting duck, and we'll be sitting ducks,"
Wanda Lynn said.

Barely a mile down the road at Jay Jackson's home, which is part
Civil War shrine with battle jackets and 30 handmade Confederate
caps, the view is starkly different. To Jackson, the ducks are already
lined up in Iraq and are getting picked off every day.

"We've created a new theater of operations for the terrorists,"
Jackson said in his kitchen overlooking the Missouri River.

"I just keep thinking about the Missouri-Kansas border war and
how smaller guerrilla forces repeatedly terrorized much larger ones.
For me it's a dilemma so easy to see," he said. "We're in a guerrilla
war, we're in a jihad, and I think both candidates need to
acknowledge that."

A soldier's view

Miles Jackson, an Army sergeant and paratrooper who returned
in May after five months in Baghdad and eight months in Afghanistan,
said the U.S. should have focused on Afghanistan and finished the
job there before moving on.

"You should have seen us on Sept. 11. We were ready to go.
American soldiers still feel that way about the terrorists. . . . It
was a political thing to slide attention over to Iraq," Miles Jackson
said, sitting with his father at the kitchen table. Invading Iraq
should have waited, he added, until it was clear the country
presented a threat to the U.S.

Miles Jackson said he doesn't believe that electing Kerry will
jeopardize the nation's security. "It's ridiculous to say that we're
more threatened or vulnerable by putting someone else in," he
said. "They'll find a way, no matter who's in office."

Jackson said he doesn't believe there is anyone who doesn't support
the troops. He is troubled, though, by anti-war demonstrations.
"If you get them [soldiers] believing that what they are doing is
wrong, it hurts morale," he said.

His father disagrees, albeit gently. "The only reason we got out of
Vietnam was because of the protesters. . . . A voice against the
war is not a voice against the military," Jay Jackson insisted.

There is no neat or quick fix in Iraq and little likelihood of winning
the hearts and minds of Iraqis, both said. Miles Jackson, who is
on inactive reserve and hopes to return to the Army after attending
college, said as long as Americans are in Iraq, "there will be problems.
No matter what time limit you put on this, there is no end."

"I don't believe most Americans understand how hard this is," he
added. "A lot of people think this is just cut and dried."

Bush repeatedly talks about how Iraq is on the road to democracy.
But Kerry warned Monday that "if we do not change course, there is
the prospect of a war with no end in sight."

To Pat McElroy this looks and sounds like Vietnam. McElroy, an
Army veteran who served in Vietnam from February 1969 to
February 1970, criticizes the political and public attitudes toward
the war.

"You have all these people saying `Yeah, we're the United States,
let's go over there and kick some ass, we're not gonna let them
push us around.' But when it comes to sending their kids over to
fight, they all say they wouldn't let their kids go," McElroy said.
"They're happy to hold your coat while you send yours."

He was speaking to a sentiment in Missouri, and elsewhere, that
the absence of a draft has enabled most people to back the war
without bearing a personal cost.

"If you had a draft there would be a huge change in attitude,"
said McElroy, who is a battalion chief in the North Kansas City
Fire Department. McElroy says a Vietnam-era draft would never
fly politically, and that has created a situation where "somebody
else's kids" are fighting the war.

McElroy has a son, Brandn, who is an Army Ranger. He
completed tours of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq.

A change of attitude

"If you have a chance of getting your arms and legs blown off, it
changes the whole attitude. Everybody has to have a stake in this,"
said the father.

Seventeen Missouri soldiers have been killed since the war began
in March 2003.

"Now if you speak out against the war, you're unpatriotic," McElroy
said. "I'm afraid this is Vietnam all over again."

Even among those who supported the war and continue to support
it, frustration is building.

Louis George, who runs an army surplus store in Lexington, said the
U.S. was right to go in and remove Hussein. But the situation in Iraq
"is not going to get stabilized. You can put a democracy in there, but
it won't last," he said.

George, who served in the Army from 1975 through 1988 and has
an autographed photo of Bush behind his store counter, said he will
vote for Bush, but he also said the strategy in Iraq has to change.
"When you fight a war against terrorism, you cut off the head of the
snake, and then ask `Who's next?'"

More than 890 American soldiers have died since Bush declared in
May 2003 that "major combat" in Iraq had ended.

Rex Jones, a city employee in St. Joseph, said rising fatalities are
the price Americans will have to pay for safety.

In Smithville, which was the hometown of Missouri's first fatality in
the Iraq war--Marine Sgt. Nicolas Hodson, who died March 22, 2003,
in a vehicle accident--Richard Pendleton talked about his early support
of the war. Hussein was a threat who needed to be dealt with, he said.

"They needed to go over there, but they should have handled it
differently. They should have disarmed everyone after they moved
in. Instead, now we've got civilians running up and down the street
with grenade launchers. That doesn't work," said Pendleton, who is
supporting Kerry.

The bar on Main Street sports bumper stickers that read "Semper Fi"
and "Osama Yo Mama." All across town opinions about Iraq are plentiful
as the conflict drags on.

Mardy Lyle, a retired beautician from Smithville, invokes the name of
Harry Truman, the nation's 33rd president and the only one from Missouri.

"Every once in a while I look up and say `Harry, come back, we need
you.'"

Time has helped burnish Truman's image and smooth over the fact
that the Korean War, which began on his watch, helped drive him
from office.

Talking on the day U.S. fatalities in Iraq passed the 1,000 mark
earlier this month, Denise Messick said she is not impatient with
Bush. "He had to go in," said Messick, who runs a candle and craft
shop on Main Street in Smithville. When asked whether she feels
safer since the capture of Hussein, she paused and said, "That's a
good question." Then she said "no," adding: "I don't think any of
us feel safe after 9/11."

`Who am I to judge'

Messick and her husband have two sons in the Navy--one stationed
in California, the other in Washington. She doesn't want either one
to go to Iraq, but if they do she says she'll understand. "It's real easy
for us to second-hand quarterback what they did. I personally would
like to see a withdrawal starting, but who am I to judge?" she said.

Skelton, for one, is willing to judge.

"The truth of the matter is there are two wars. The real war is the
war against the terrorists in Afghanistan. . . . Afghanistan has not
gotten the attention it should have," Skelton said. "If it had, we
would have bin Laden, and if not him then his forces where they
couldn't breed around the world.

"I have given a number of speeches around Missouri, and most of
the time people don't disagree," he said.

Meierer hasn't heard any of those speeches. She's not inclined to
listen much to politicians. She doesn't trust Kerry, and Bush, she
said, did exactly what she feared he would do--take the country
to war. That's why she didn't vote for him four years ago. The only
person who impresses her is John Edwards , Kerry's running mate.

Meierer describes herself as a political independent and undecided.
"I can't rely on either one of them," she said of Bush and Kerry.

The Meierer family is part of the Missouri military tradition. Her
uncle was killed in Vietnam. Her husband has 12 brothers and
sisters, and all of them, including her husband, served in the
military.

"My son didn't know what he wanted. I was hesitant when Justin
enlisted, but I thought it would be a good opportunity for him,"
she said. "Now I worry about car bombings and `silly things' as
much as I do combat."

"I've had it with Iraq," she added. "It's time for us to take care of
people here in the United States."

Copyright (c) 2004 Chicago Tribune
Copyright (c) 2004 Yahoo! Inc.

---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

7) The Triple Crises in the U.S.
By James Petras
www.antiterroristas.cu/index.php?tpl=noticia/
anew¬iciaid=99¬iciafecha=2002-09-11



The concept 'crises' has been overused and abused by writers on
the left - especially with regard to the capitalist economy. One
result is that when a real crises emerges - it is not taken seriously.
The US political and economic system today is in serious crises - a
triple crises affecting its biggest multinational corporations and
therefore the economy, a political crises affecting the state in its
relationship to internal security, and external belligerancy, and a
crises of the political system that not only fails to represent the
electorate but is incapable of responding to the political and
economic crises.

The economic crises, referred to in the financial press as the "crises
of corporate governance", involves multi-billion dollar fraud by many
of the biggest energy, oil, media companies, investment banks,
accounting firms and mega-conglomerates in the US and in the
world. The names are familiar - Credit Suisse First Boston, ENRON,
El Paso Oil, Merrill Lynch, Xerox, Adelpha, Tyco, Worldcom, Dynergy,
Southeby and dozens of other banks and firms. The number of
pensioners, employees and investors who have lost their savings
number in the tens of millions.

The chief executive of Goldman Sachs, Henry Paulson, a financial
leader on Wall Street declared that US corporations are in a "position
of low repute not seen in my lifetime." According to the Financial
Times and the Wall Street Journal, the problem is "corporate greed"
and "loss of investor trust".

The real problem is not just individual greed, but the entire
deregulation of the banking and corporate sectors and the
speculative nature of the US economy. The problem is systematic:
the concentration of economic power and the corporate control
over the political system mean that CEO's design the legislation
and write the rules which allow them a free hand to commit large
scale fraud and take huge short- term profits - before their
companies collapse. The case of ENRON and El Paso Oil and their
dominant role in shaping the Bush-Cheney energy policy is
emblematic of the symbiotic relationship, just as Clinton's ties
to Wall Street led to the deregulation of financial and banking
sectors.

The systematic consequences of large scale and all pervasive
fraud has been the de-legitimation of the big investment banks
among investors and a massive decline in foreign investment in
the US. From January to February 2001, $78 billion flowed in to
the US, during the same two months in 2002 only $14.6 billion
of foreign funds were invested in US stocks and bonds. The
decline of foreign flows has substantially weakened the dollar.
It threatens to push the US external accounts deficit to crises
levels, forcing a major retrenchment in imports and living
standards. The precipitous decline in foreign investment in
the US is because investors no longer trust corporate reports
on profits, and particularly, no longer trust US auditors' reports
and US CEO's. The result is that the stock market has declined,
stock losses in 2002 continue for the third straight year, big
corporate bankruptcies are on the rise, while profits decline -
truly an economic crises.

The political crises is deeply embedded in the larger political
context of the events preceding and following 9/11. The
revelations of Washington's prior knowledge of a terrorist plot
to hijack airplanes in the US - including warnings of an attack
on public and private buildings - has raised fundamental questions.
The official version of the Bush Administration , State Department,
CIA/FBI and the Congressional Democrats is that there was a
" failure of intelligence " - individual bureaucrats failed to act,
the bureaucracy was not "efficient" or was "understaffed".
Among most critical intellectuals, journalists and experts on
intelligence, the official explanations fail to deal with several
important discrepancies. First of all , Condaleeza Rice, the National
Security Adviser, publically stated that during the summer of 2001
the Bush Administration believed the " al Qaeda might hijack an
aircraft and use it to bargain for the release of prisoners... I don't
think anyone could have predicted that these people would take
an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center" ( Financial
Times 5/18-19 2002, p.6 ) Rice admitted that "We only expected
a traditional hijacking." The Bush Administration ignored warnings
from France, Egypt, Israel, England that a terrorist action was
imminent; it ignored warnings from FBI agents in Arizona and
Minnesota of possible airplane hijackings by terrorists training
as airline pilots, and it ignored a CIA briefing to President Bush
on August 6, 2001 stating that al Qaeda was planning a hijacking.

Most observers believe that with so many warnings converging
from so many responsible sources to high level Bush officials,
according to Condoleeza Rice, there is another explanation: that
the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld regime was prepared to allow a
"traditional" hijacking to take place - in order to exploit it for
both narrow and global political interests. They did not suspect
that the terrorists would attack the WTC and the Pentagon.

Several other issues raise suspicion that high officials in he Bush
Administration were involved in facilitating the hijackings: the
terrorist leaders had multiple entry visas - not easy to obtain for
ordinary tourists. The terrorists functioned openly - entering
flight schools, and even seeking U.S. Department of Agriculture
loans to buy "crop-duster" airplanes. Thirdly many received their
visas from Saudi Arabia, where a former US Consul official has
stated that many visas were issued under pressure from the CIA -
probably to recruits for US-sponsored Islamist wars in Bosnia,
Kosova, Chechnya and Central Asia. There is a good possibility
that at least some of the terrorists were 'double agents' - one
reason for the so-called "intelligence failures" and the refusal
after 9/11 to reveal prior knowledge.

There is a large body of historical studies on US foreign policy
which demonstrates that Washington "manufactures crises" to
justify war. The examples range from the "bombing of the Maine"
as a prelude to the US-Spanish-Cuban War, to Roosevelt's
foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor, to President Johnson's infamous
" Tonkin Incident " during the Vietnam War, to Bush father's invention
of the Iraqi destruction of infant incubators in Kuwait. In each case
the President declared an "unprovoked attack" and mobilized the
public for large scale warfare of conquest and colonization. In the
case of the US war in Afghanistan, it is on public record that on
September 10 2001, the Bush Administration had prepared a plan
to attack the Taliban and al Qaeda - which it fully implemented
after September 11.

The manufacture and use of provocations has a long and ignoble
history in US, European and Japanese expansion - as Mexicans can
painfully recall from the frequent invasions and annexations justified
on the grounds of eliminating "terrorist bandits".

War had been an essential instrument of empire building for the last
four US presidents. President Reagan's successful wars against
Grenada and Panama contributed to his popularity, weakened the
'Vietnam Syndrome' and allowed his regime to reverse progressive
social legislation. This pattern was repeated and extended by Bush
(father) in the US war against Iraq - the military victory led to the
proclamation of a 'New World Order' based on Washington's
supremacy. Clinton's war against Yugoslavia and the continuation
of the bombing of Iraq was accompanied by the total deregulation
of the economy, the savaging of the remnants of the welfare
program, and the information technology, bio-tech, fiber optics
speculative bubble. Bush ( son ) as a minority president, elected
through voter fraud in Florida used the Afghan war to increase
public backing, vastly expanded military and secret police budgets
and powers, to subsidize big business and vastly increase US
political and military empire throughout Asia, Latin America and
the former Soviet Union. The initial terrorist act, and the cover-up
of US involvement, has led to serious decline in democratic
freedoms and the constant threat of new terrorist plots to
increase police state intervention in all aspects of civil society.

Both the admissions of "mistakes" by the Bush administration
the Congressional critics' charges of "incompetence" has
served the police-military apparatus very well. "Home defense" -
extended police powers and personnel received an additional
$37 billion dollars, on top of the original $29 billion dollars.
The newly created Department of Homeland Security will have
170,000 agents and staff.

As State spending on the police and military skyrockets, private
investors are pushed aside, budget deficits soar, foreign investors
turn to more lucrative sites and the US economy destabilizes. While
the empire expands - the domestic political and economic system
weakens and the dollar plunges.

There are no corrective mechanisms in sight. Unlike previous epochs
when large scale corporate-banking scandals occurred, major reforms
were implemented. Today there is neither a popular reform movement
nor congressional opposition. The Financial Times states, it is "politics
as usual". The reason for the lack of a corporate reform movement is
that the same corrupt banks and corporations - like ENRON, Merril
Lynch etc - contribute and finance both political parties.

Washington's cover-up of its linkages leading to 9/11 is related to
their cover-up in the Anthrax attacks. Leading journalists and micro-
biologists have identified the US military research laboratory at Fort
Detrick, Maryland as the source and even have identified two US
micro-biologists as likely suspects. The FBI has refused to act. The
reason is that the scientists were engaged in weaponizing Anthrax
and other chemical and biological agents - work which violates the
Chemical and Biological Treaty of 1991. No Congressional investigation.
No mass media expose. No public outcry. The triple crises deepens,
the apologists for the empire brush off systemic critics as " conspiracy
theorists " - but the critical intellectuals continue to prod the public
conscience, hoping for a revival and renewal of democratic politics.

---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

8) Clash Over Prisoners Exposes Power Struggle
US overrules Iraqi government plan to free women scientists
By Rory McCarthy in Baghdad
Published on Thursday, September 23, 2004 by the Guardian/UK
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0923-01.htm


The confusion yesterday over whether two "high-value" women
prisoners being held in Iraq would be released has underlined the
limits of the interim government's authority.

The apparent differences between the statements of Iraqi ministers
and US officials will raise questions yet again over both the coherence
of the new administration and the degree of independence it actually
enjoys.

By the end of the day, US and Iraqi officials appeared to have agreed
that neither Rihab Rashid Taha, a biological weapons scientist held in
custody in Baghdad, nor Huda Salih Amash, a microbiologist, would
be released imminently.

But this followed a series of conflicting statements, which were
provoked by Iraq's justice minister insisting on Tuesday that Dr Taha
was expected to be freed on bail today - a move that offered a
glimmer of hope to the family of the last remaining hostage,
Kenneth Bigley.

The announcement took the British and the Americans by surprise
at a time when both governments were saying they were determined
not to give any concessions to terrorists.

As yesterday wore on, it became increasingly clear that the release
of either woman was not within the gift of the Iraqi government.

The US embassy in Baghdad appeared to have finally ruled out the
possibility of an immediate release when a spokesman insisted that
"the two women are in legal and physical custody of the multinational
forces in Iraq and neither will be released imminently".

Though the US occupation authorities formally handed over
"sovereignty" to the Iraqi government in late June, key decisions
including those involving big combat operations and the detention
of high-security suspects from the former regime are still taken
by the US.

There is supposed to be dialogue between the Iraqi government
and the US forces concerning the military operations, but the Iraqi
government has no power of veto.

In the case of the two scientists - regarded as "high-value" detainees
when they were arrested - the buck still stops with the Americans.
They are being held by US troops in a prison thought to be at the
base around Baghdad airport.

There is little doubt that the final say in such high-security cases
rests with the American commanders.

Lieutenant Colonel Barry Johnson, a US military spokesman on
detention operations, said responsibility for approving each release
lay "primarily with the multinational forces," although he said there
was "consultation" with the Iraqi government.

"There has been an ongoing process of reviewing specifically the
cases of high-value detainees that has proceeded over the last
couple of months," he said.

"That process continues and we are not prepared to indicate when
a final decision may be made on any high-value detainees. I am
not prepared to comment on the timing of what might happen."

Dr Taha, known as "Dr Germ," is the wife of Iraq's former oil minister
and has a PhD from the University of East Anglia. Amash, dubbed
"Mrs Anthrax", received a masters from Texas Women's University
and studied microbiology at the University of Missouri-Columbia.

The Iraqi government clearly believes that the inmates do not pose
an imminent threat to security in Iraq.

Iraq's justice ministry insisted yesterday it still wanted to release
the women, although it said this had nothing to do with the
kidnapping of Mr Bigley and the two executed Americans, Eugene
Armstrong and Jack Hensley.

"We have discussed this issue and I do think they should be
released.

"We started this process two months ago," said Noori Abdul-Rahim,
a spokesman for the ministry.

He said the final legal procedures were being completed for the
release on bail of Dr Taha, including finding an Iraqi community
leader to act as a guarantor for her future behaviour.

He said the ministry wanted her to be released today or in the
coming days.

Iraq's new national security adviser, Qasim Daoud, took a slightly
different tack.

He said the investigation into whether the two women could be
released was over but that "security measures" were still under
way before the sci entists could be allowed to go home. "Until
now the security measures are still going on," he told a news
conference in Baghdad.

"I say they will not be released today, tomorrow or after tomorrow -
but after they undergo a medical checkup and security measures.
The investigation is over but we are still going on with the security
measures."

Amid the confused promises of release yesterday, it remained
unclear whether the kidnappers knew that only two women were
still in jail or even hoped for their release. Tawhid and Jihad, the
militant group behind the kidnappings, is the most violent in Iraq
and has been responsible for a series of videoed killings in recent
weeks.

Far from making specific demands over prisoners, their messages
usually talk of leading an epic battle against the US and its allies
and destroying the current Iraqi government.

Copyright (c) Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
9) US Hand Seen in Afghan Election
Some candidates say the embassy pressured them not to run a
gainst President Karzai
By Paul Watson
KABUL, Afghanistan
Published on Thursday, September 23, 2004
by the Los Angeles Times
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0923-26.htm


KABUL, Afghanistan - Mohammed Mohaqiq says he was getting
ready to make his run for the Afghan presidency when U.S.
Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad dropped by his campaign office
and proposed a deal.

"He told me to drop out of the elections, but not in a way to put
pressure," Mohaqiq said. "It was like a request."

After the hourlong meeting last month, the ethnic Hazara warlord
said in an interview Tuesday, he wasn't satisfied with the rewards
offered for quitting, which he did not detail. Mohaqiq was still
determined to run for president - though, he said, the U.S.
ambassador wouldn't give up trying to elbow him out of the race.

"He left, and then called my most loyal men, and the most educated
people in my party or campaign, to the presidential palace and told
them to make me - or request me - to resign the nomination. And
he told my men to ask me what I need in return."

Mohaqiq, who is running in the Oct. 9 election, is one of several
candidates who maintain that the U.S. ambassador and his aides
are pushing behind the scenes to ensure a convincing victory by
the pro-American incumbent, President Hamid Karzai. The Americans
deny doing so.

"It is not only me," Mohaqiq said. "They have been doing the same
thing with all candidates. That is why all people think that not only
Khalilzad is like this, but the whole U.S. government is the same.
They all want Karzai - and this election is just a show."

The charges were repeated by several other candidates and their
senior campaign staff in interviews here. They reflected anger over
what many Afghans see as foreign interference that could undermine
the shaky foundations of a democracy the U.S. promised to build.

"This doesn't suit the representative of a nation that has helped us
in the past," said Sayed Mustafa Sadat Ophyani, campaign manager
for Younis Qanooni, Karzai's leading rival. "You have seen
Afghanistan suffering for 25 years, from the Russians, then the
Taliban. Why is the U.S. government now looking to make people
of Afghanistan accept whatever the U.S. government says?"

Qanooni said he and 13 other presidential candidates planned to
meet today in Kabul, the capital, to air complaints about Khalilzad's
interference.

In a statement released this week, Khalilzad denied the allegations
that he and his staff were meddling in the election.

"U.S. Embassy officials regularly keep in touch with all presidential
candidates, and we listen to their ideas and proposals," he said in
an e-mailed response from New York, where he was attending the
opening of the U.N. General Assembly.

"Officials from the U.S. mission support the elections process, not
individuals," the statement added. "No U.S. official can or will endorse
or campaign on behalf of any individual presidential candidate."

Khalilzad also said he "has never asked a candidate to withdraw -
this is a decision for each candidate to make for him or herself."

Since coming to power after the American-led invasion that
overthrew the Taliban in 2001, the interim Afghan government
largely has been beholden to the United States for its survival.
The U.S. has deployed about 18,000 troops and is spending about
$1 billion a year on reconstruction in the Central Asian nation.
Karzai depends on the Americans for his safety: DynCorp, a
Virginia-based firm, has provided his bodyguards since November
2002 under a contract with the State Department.

Khalilzad has been nicknamed "the Viceroy" because the influence
he wields over the Afghan government reminds some Afghans of
the excesses of British colonialism. Some of Karzai's rivals think that
the ambassador has taken on a new role: presidential campaign
manager.

This is not the first time Khalilzad has been accused of meddling
in Afghan politics. Delegates to gatherings that named Karzai
interim president in 2002 and ratified Afghanistan's new
Constitution last December also accused the ambassador of
interfering, even of paying delegates for their support. Khalilzad
denies the claims.

The latest allegations are perhaps more serious because the Bush
administration is portraying Afghanistan's presidential election as
a democratic victory for the country's people, who suffered under
more than two decades of strife. President Bush has touted bringing
Afghan democracy as a foreign policy success in his election
campaign.

There are 18 candidates in the Afghan election. Such a divided
field is expected to favor Karzai, whom Afghans hear and see
frequently on state-controlled radio and television.

The president, who is usually holed up in his heavily fortified palace
because of threats to his life, has made only one campaign trip
outside Kabul since the election campaign began Sept. 7. That trip
last Thursday was aborted when a rocket missed the U.S. military
helicopter in which he was traveling.

Mohaqiq commands strong loyalty among Hazaras and, if he chooses
to step aside and endorse Karzai, probably could deliver a large bloc
of votes. Mohaqiq said Tuesday that he might still do so - for the
right deal.

Mohaqiq said his senior aides met the U.S. ambassador at the
presidential palace, without Karzai. The aides agreed try again to
persuade their candidate to drop out of the race and throw his
support behind the incumbent, Mohaqiq said.

The pressure was so intense that he agreed to quit under certain
conditions, he added.

Mohaqiq said his demands, in the event of Karzai's victory, would
be four Cabinet posts for his party, four governorships in the
mainly Hazara provinces of central Afghanistan and a new road
from Kabul into the region, informally known as Hazarajat.

Mohaqiq said Khalilzad told him that the new road would not be
a problem, but that his party would have to settle for two ministerial
posts, two deputy spots in other ministries and one governorship.

"I was very interested in taking part in the elections, but since many
of my men were asking me to accept Khalilzad's ideas - and he was
also telling me to do so - I didn't have much choice, and I was ready
to agree," Mohaqiq said.

"But a good thing happened, and Karzai didn't agree with those terms,"
he added. "I don't know why."

Several leaders of the Northern Alliance, whose troops ousted the
Taliban regime in late 2001 with the help of U.S. air power, met in
Kabul on Friday to discuss what they said was Khalilzad's electoral
arm-twisting, said Mohammed Qasem Mohseni, one of presidential
candidate Abdul Latif Pedram's two running mates.

Mohseni said the summit participants included Foreign Minister
Abdullah, who goes by one name; former President Burhanuddin
Rabbani, who like Abdullah is a member of the Tajik minority; and
Ustad Abdul Rasul Sayyaf who, like Karzai, is a Pushtun, Afghanistan's
largest ethnic group.

"In this meeting, Ustad Sayyaf said that we have been under pressure
for 25 days by the U.S. government, by Khalilzad, to make Younis
Qanooni resign from the post of candidate for the presidency,"
Mohseni said.

Qanooni is not expected to win the race. However, he could
prevent Karzai from gaining more than 50% of the votes, forcing
a runoff and prolonging a campaign that already has drawn violent
attacks by Taliban and other insurgents.

Qanooni's campaign aides said Khalilzad was trying to persuade the
candidate to accept defeat before any ballots were counted and to
agree to join Karzai in a coalition government after the vote.

"Our hearts have been broken because we thought we could have
beaten Mr. Karzai if this had been a true election," Ophyani said.
"But it is not. Mr. Khalilzad is putting a lot of pressure on us and
does not allow us to fight a good election campaign."

Some say Khalilzad is working to draw Rabbani, the former president,
to Karzai's side, which would deepen the split in Qanooni's Northern
Alliance.

Qanooni supporters say that Rabbani, whose son-in-law is one of
Karzai's running mates, visited Badakhshan province last month
with Khalilzad and urged local militia commanders to back the
incumbent. The former president insists that the discussions in his
home province dealt only with reconstruction.

"I told Mr. Khalilzad, 'The people of Badakhshan are waiting for you,
and they are always asking, what is the U.S. government doing?' "
Rabbani said. "I told him to go there and see the people, and he
promised to construct a road and a dam for them."

There is nothing wrong with the U.S. ambassador working closely
with Afghanistan's president as long as he only offers advice and
doesn't make decisions, Rabbani added.

"I believe that Mr. Karzai and Khalilzad are linked very closely with
each other now and they were in the past too," Rabbani said. "And
when they have links, they probably have political links or any
other kind of links."

(c) 2004 Los Angeles Times

---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

10) 100+ Organizing Centers for the Million Worker March!
Momentum is growing for the Million Worker March. There
are now more than 100 organizing centers across the
country as the word spreads and working people answer the
call to organizize in our own name.
http://www.AntiWar4theMillionWorkerMarch.org
***Become an organizer!

We need your help! We need more activists to become bus
organizers in their area. you can sign up online to
become an organizer:
http://antiwar4themillionworkermarch.org/organizingcenters.htm

We also need help with the enormous expenses involved with
organizing Anti War 4 the Million Worker March. You can
donate online at :
http://antiwar4themillionworkermarch.org/index.htm or by
mail. Make checks payable to: People's Rights Fund/Oct.17
Buses, and send to:
Antiwar4the Million Worker March
39 W. 14th St. #206
NY NY 10011

New endorsers are signing up daily. The executive board
of SEIU 1199 in NYC just voted to endorse. This is the
largest union in New York, with over 250,000 members. The
union also agreed to provide buses for their members who
wish to paticipate in the Million worker March,

Other recent endorsers include: Rainbow/PUSH, the Green
Party, AFSCME District Council 37, and many others. (for
an updated list of endorsers, see
http://antiwar4themillionworkermarch.org/endorsers.htm)

**NYC Rally & Fundraiser for the Million Worker March
Friday, September 24th 2004 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.
New York, New York

Food, drinks, music, comedy, poetry, and even a few
speeches. Let's get together to have fun and show the
bosses we can build a big militant labor movement that
fights for jobs, education, health care and not war on
other poor and working people around the world. For more
information go to our organizing web site or contact by
email.

Location:
SEIU-32 BJ Union Hall 101 Sixth Ave. near Canal St, Grand
and Watts St. New York New York 10013

6-9 pm

For Ticket Information, contact Chris Silvera 718-389-1900
x 21, Brenda Stokely 212-219-0022 x5185, Hetram (Chuck)
Mohan 212-210-0022 x5119

http://www.AntiWar4theMillionWorkerMarch.org
Anyone can subscribe.
Send an email request to
AntiWar4theMillionWorkerMarch-subscribe@organizerweb.com
To unsubscribe AntiWar4theMillionWorkerMarch-unsubscribe@organizerweb.com
Subscribing and unsubscribing can also be done on the Web at
http://www.organizerweb.com/mailman/listinfo/antiwar4themillionworkermarch

---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

11) DROP THE DEBT! STOP THE WAR! WE DEMAND JUSTICE!

THE MOBILIZATION FOR GLOBAL J
USTICE calls all activists to
WASHINGTON DC on OCTOBER 1ST
AND 2nd to protest the meetings of the G-7, the
World Bank and the IMF and to join
a Memorial Procession to end the war in
Iraq.

In 2002, developing countries received
$58 billion in loans and development
"aid", much of it from the World Bank
and the International Monetary Fund
(IMF). The same countries, in the same
year, REPAID OVER 5 TIMES THAT AMOUNT
in servicing their debt: $324 BILLION.
For many countries, paying back their
debt diverts public funds that would
otherwise go to public education,
healthcare, food subsidies, and other
essential services.

For the first time in history, 100%
multilateral debt cancellation for
impoverished nations is on the table.
An agreement could be reached on
October 1st during a meeting of the
G7 Finance Ministers. The joint annual
meeting of the IMF and World Bank take
place October 2nd and 3rd, and any
agreement on multilateral debt
cancellation would have to be ratified and
implemented there. THEY MUST FEEL THE
PRESSURE FROM US.

At the same time thousands of U.S. troops and
Iraqis continue to be killed
in Iraq while US corporations
like Halliburton reap the benefits.


FRIDAY, OCTOBER 1

"TIME'S UP! DROP THE DEBT!"
PICKET OF THE G-7 AT THE WORLD BANK/IMF MEETINGS
Friday, October 1, 12:00 noon, location TBA
Join Jubilee USA Network in front of
the G-7 Finance ministers meeting in a
spirited picket. We will be there
demanding that the voices of the millions
living under the harsh economic
regime of international debt be heard - 100%
Debt Cancellation Without Harmful
Conditions from the Resources of the World
Bank and the IMF! Money for health,
education, the environment, not for debt
payments!
For more information: Jubilee USA
Network, 202-783-3566, www.jubileeusa.org

WATCH AND WAIT_.
VIGIL AT THE WORLD BANK AND IMF MEETINGS
Friday, Oct. 1, 2:30pm through Saturday, Oct. 2, 6:00pm
Location: Outside the World Bank
and IMF, 18th and H Streets, NW
The 50 Years Is Enough Network,
the Religious Working Group on the World
Bank and the IMF, the Jubilee USA
Network, and Africa Action will keep vigil
outside the World Bank and IMF
meetings. We will honor the victims of 60
years of tragic policies and crippling
debt; we will call on the
institutions to cancel the debt. In
solidarity with the successful peoples
movements everywhere, we will
keep vigil in front of the World Bank and the
IMF, watching and waiting... for a
measure of justice! Please join us!
For more information: 50 Years Is
Enough Network, 202-463-2265,
www.50years.org


SATURDAY, OCTOBER 2

A TRAIL OF MOURNING AND TRUTH
FROM IRAQ TO THE WHITE HOUSE
October 2, 12:00 noon: Gathering:
Arlington National Cemetery, Women's
Memorial
*Opening reflections by Andy Shallal,
Veterans, Families who have lost loved
ones in Iraq, and Others *Please wear
black mourning clothes befitting a
funeral or memorial *Arlington
National Cemetery Metro stop
(recommended) or
paid parking at the Cemetery
*The Women's Memorial is at the end of
Memorial Drive near the cemetery's entrance

1:00pm: Memorial Procession from
Arlington Cemetery to the White House
*Solemn procession across Memorial
Bridge, past the Lincoln Memorial, and to
the Ellipse side of the White House (approx 3 miles)

2:00pm: Closing Ceremony: The
White House, Ellipse
*Reading the names of the dead
and remembering the wounded *Speakers: Arun
Gandhi, Lila Lipscomb, Celeste
Zappala, Michael Berg, and Others
*Peacemakers risking arrest will
try to deliver the names of the dead to the
White House at the conclusion of
the ceremony. Those taking part are urged
to have nonviolence training, an
affinity group & observe nonviolence
guidelines. Max: 410-323-7200
mobuszewski@afsc.org.

Sponsored by a coalition of groups
including Iraq Pledge of Resistance,
Military Families Speak Out, Peace
Action, American Friends Service
Committee, DC Antiwar Network,
Washington Peace Center, and others.
For more information:
In Washington DC: 301-589-2355
or pledgecoordinator@starpower.net
Baltimore: 410-323-7200
Philadelphia/Wilmington: 302-656-2721
NYC: 212-228-0450 x104


FOLLOWING THE MEMORIAL PROCESSION,
MGJ WILL MARCH TO JOIN THE VIGIL AT THE
WORLD BANK AND IMF MEETINGS
The vigil will culminate in a closing ceremony 4:00-6:00pm


THE MOBILIZATION FOR GLOBAL
JUSTICE is a Washington DC based group that
works on issues of global economic
and social justice and sustainability. We
believe another world is possible and
necessary. We envision a world free of
corporate domination and crushing debt,
particularly in communities of
color. We act to expose and change the
institutionalized violence wrought by
international financial and trade institutions
such as the World Bank,
International Monetary Fund, and World
Trade Organization.

The Mobilization is committed to nonviolence
and recognizes militarism as a
tool used by the global corporate elite
to keep money flowing to the
privileged few while restricting the
rights of people worldwide. We oppose
corporate practice which places short-
term profits ahead of human dignity,
sustainable development and a healthy
earth. We stand for the globalization
of our rights to speech, thought, religion,
assembly, a clean environment,
self-determination, freedom from fear
and persecution and freedom from
poverty.

We stand for the rights of women,
children, elderly, affordable health care,
strong labor rights and social and
economic policies that put people and the
environment before profits. Finally,
we are committed to linking the IMF and
World Bank policies to similar ones
that are being implemented in Washington
DC which are resulting in decreased
access to vital human services for DC's
most needy residents. To that other
globalization--the globalization of
greed and obscene concentrations of
wealth--we say that Another World Is
Possible and Necessary.

MGJ is a non-hierarchical nonviolent
organization of individuals and
organizations that promotes the arts,
conducts workshops, facilitates
nonviolent direct actions, educates,
organizes, campaigns, empowers, and
aims to rip injustice from its roots.

---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

12) Who Is Ayad Allawi?
September 23, 2004

Ayad Allawi spoke before a joint session of the U.S. Congress this
morning. He spoke of "the values of liberty and democracy." For
general information on Allawi, see the resource Disinfopedia:
www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Iyad_Allawi .

Here are some relevant articles:

The New York Times , "Ex-C.I.A. Aides Say Iraq Leader Helped
Agency in 90's Attacks" (June 9, 2004)
by Joel Brinkley

The article states: "Dr. Allawi's group, the Iraqi National Accord,
used car bombs and other explosive devices smuggled into
Baghdad from northern Iraq, the officials said."
www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0609-02.htm

The Sydney Morning Herald (Australia), "Allawi Shot Inmates
in Cold Blood, Say Witnesses" (July 17, 2004)
by Paul McGeough, Chief Herald Correspondent, in Baghdad
www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0716-01.htm

The Guardian (UK), "Who Seized Simona Torretta? -- This Iraqi
Kidnapping has the Mark of an Undercover Police Operation"
(Sept. 16, 2004)
by Naomi Klein and Jeremy Scahill
The article states: "...witnesses said that several attackers
wore Iraqi National Guard uniforms and identified themselves
as working for Ayad Allawi, the interim prime minister."
www.commondreams.org/views04/0916-11.htm

The Independent (UK), "Exiled Allawi was Responsible
for 45-Minute WMD Claim" (May 29, 2004)
by Patrick Cockburn
www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0529-02.htm

The Guardian (UK), "Al-Jazeera closure 'a blow to
freedom'" (August 9, 2004)
by Lisa O'Carroll and agencies
The article states: "The Iraq prime minister's
decision to throw al-Jazeera out of Baghdad
and ban it from operating for 30 days is 'a
serious blow to press freedom,' Reporters Sans
Frontieres has said.'"
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1279410,00.html

The Egyptian Gazette (Cairo, via AP),
"On the Selection of Ayad Allawi as Iraq's
Prime Minister" (June 1, 2004)
The editorial states: "The U.S.-installed
Interim Governing Council named Ayad
Allawi, a member of the IGC, to head the
government that takes over on June 30.
Allawi's selection could be seen as a pre-
emptive bid to consolidate the council's
grip on power and turn the transitional
government into a U.S. puppet. It is a slap
in the face for the U.N. as well. The IGC is
unpopular with most Iraqis for comprising
Iraqi exiles. Even Lakhdar Ibrahimi, the U.N.
envoy to Iraq, was taken aback by the
announcement of Allawi as the new prime minister."

WILLIAM BLUM, bblum6@aol.com ,www.killinghope.org
Blum is author of the books Killing Hope: U.S.
Military and CIA Interventions Since World War
II and Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only
Superpower .

DOUGLAS VALENTINE, redspruce@comcast.net ,
www.douglasvalentine.com
Author of the book The Phoenix Program , about
U.S. "counter-insurgency" operations in Vietnam,
Valentine said today: "Allawi worked for Saddam,
then for the British secret services, then the CIA.
The U.S. government clearly needs a strongman
to do its bidding; someone who acts on self-interest
and not in the interest of the Iraqi people he's
supposed to represent. It looks like Allawi fits that
bill quite well."

For more information, contact at the Institute for
Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan,
(541) 484-9167

---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

13) Mistrial in Pepper Spray Suit
Jurors Deadlock 6-2 in Favor of Demonstrators
By Bob Egelko
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0923-20.htm
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/23/
BAGHJ8T65U28.DTL

SAN FRANCISCO - The second trial of a lawsuit filed by anti-logging
protesters whose eyes were doused with pepper spray ended Wednesday the
same way the first did -- with jurors unable to agree whether police and
sheriff's deputies in Humboldt County had inflicted unnecessary pain to
break up sit-ins.


These images taken from a video that was shot by the Eureka, Calif.,
Police Department, according to Headwaters Forest Defenders, show what
Headwaters Forest Defenders allege are officers swabbing the eyes of
demonstrators with liquid pepper spray at the office of U.S. Rep. Frank
Riggs in Eureka, Calif., Oct. 16, 1997. A federal judge declared a
mistrial Wednesday, Sept. 22, 2004, when a second jury deadlocked on the
question of whether police went too far by swabbing pepper spray on the
eyes of bound, nonviolent logging protesters in 1997. (AP
Photo/Headwaters Forest Defenders, File)

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston declared a mistrial after jurors in
her San Francisco courtroom told her they were hopelessly deadlocked in
6 1/2 hours of deliberations over two days. Several jurors told
reporters afterward that the vote had been 6-2 in favor of the
plaintiffs, who argued that the use of pepper spray on nonviolent
demonstrators was excessive force.

The jury in the first trial in 1998, a year after the incidents,
deadlocked 4-4. The activists and their lawyers quickly announced plans
Wednesday for a third trial.

"We will win next time,'' declared attorney J. Tony Serra. "It'll be a
different kind of trial. It'll still be political. It'll still be
vehement.''

"It is a long haul,'' said plaintiff Spring Lundberg, 24. "Post-Sept.
11, it may be hard for people to realize that a badge, a uniform may be
misused.''

The defendants -- Humboldt County, its current and former sheriff and
the city of Eureka -- argued that pepper spray was a temporarily painful
but safe option for dislodging demonstrators who occupy private property
and resist legitimate demands to leave. They noted that a state advisory
commission approved guidelines for applying liquid pepper spray
alongside the eyes of demonstrators in 1998.

Defense lawyer Nancy Delaney said she would ask Illston to dismiss the
suit rather than retry it. U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker granted
Delaney's request for a dismissal after the first trial, saying no
reasonable juror could find excessive force, but he was overruled by an
appeals court and later removed from the case.

The suit stems from demonstrations during a three-week period in
September and October 1997 at Pacific Lumber Co. headquarters in Scotia,
at a company logging site and at the Eureka office of a pro-logging
congressman.

The protesters, including the eight plaintiffs, locked themselves
together inside heavy metal sleeves and refused to leave. After
warnings, officers applied liquid pepper spray to the corners of their
eyes with Q-tips, then sprayed the chemical in the faces of those who
still refused to unlock. Videotapes of demonstrators screaming in pain
were shown on national television and played for the jury.

In the past, the sheriff's office had used electric grinders to cut
through the metal sleeves. But Sheriff Dennis Lewis and his chief
deputy, Gary Philp, who is now the sheriff, said they changed their
policy in 1997 after officers voiced fears that the grinders would
injure someone or start a fire, and after they reviewed studies that
concluded pepper spray was safe.

The plaintiffs said they suffered lasting physical and psychological
effects from the pepper spray, and accused the sheriff's office of
acting at the behest of Pacific Lumber, the county's largest employer,
to crack down on a growing movement protesting the logging of old-growth
forests.

After the mistrial, juror Elva Ibarra of Livermore said the officers had
gone too far.

"They used pepper spray on nonviolent people,'' she said. "They had
other options.''

The two jurors who voted for a finding of reasonable force declined to
speak to reporters. But the jury foreman -- E.M. Feigenbaum, a
psychiatrist from San Rafael who sided with the plaintiffs -- said the
dissident jurors "thought pepper spray was not so terrible, that it was
only temporary. I tried to point out that there was post-traumatic
stress disorder.''

Illston made a last-minute attempt to settle the case Wednesday, calling
lawyers into her chambers after jurors first reported they were stymied.
But the judge ran into the same obstacle that has thwarted settlement
efforts for years: The plaintiffs want Humboldt County and Eureka to
stop using pepper spray against political demonstrators, a demand the
law enforcement agencies reject.

"We cannot resolve a legal case by urging the sheriff to change policy
in a way that would potentially pose a greater risk of injury,'' Delaney
said.

(c) 2004 San Francisco Chronicle

The material in this post is distributed without profit to those
who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research and educational purposes.
For more information go to:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

http://oregon.uoregon.edu/~csundt/documents.htm

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this email for
purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission
from the copyright owner.

Via: earthfirstalert list - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/earthfirstalert
List-Subscribe: mailto:earthfirstalert-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

14) Subject: Mural dream...Idriss Stelley Foundation
From: Iolmisha@cs.com
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:05:14 EDT

Hello!

My name is mesha Monge-Irizarry, CO-Director of Idriss Stelley
Foundation. (For background, you may log on justice4idriss.org, or
idrissonelove.com, or google serach under mesha Irizarry, Idriss
Stelley, or Idriss Stelley Foundation).

My only child, 23, was killed by SFPD at the SF Sony Metreon on
6-13-01, 48 bullets, 9 cops, while standing alone in an empty
theater. With the proceedings of the settlement, I created our
foundation along with sandra-juanita Cooper. We provide free,
confidential services to the biological &extended families of loved
ones endangered, traumatized, disabled or killed by law
enforcement. Idriss was a community activist and is sorely
missed by his family and community. His case as well as Amadou
Diallo's are landmarks nationwide around use of deadly force
against young Black males, and Idriss' case is at the root of Prop
H, Police Reform which won by a substantial margin on SF Nov 03
Ballot, and of the expanded SFPD Mental Health training since
March 2002.

We have dreamed for a long time to do a mural in memory of
Idriss alongside our house on Hawes and Ingerson, 1 block from
3COM Park, and for the past year to combine it with end youth
violence, and violence against youth of color in SF. The message
would be that the youth ain't the criminal, the institution is !
Poverty and environmental racism is the cause of criminalization
of youth of color. The 29 Sunset bus, which transports all BVHP
youth to public schools turns in front of the house, and we get a
huge crowd passing by every 49ers game. The impact of the
mural would be phenomenal and would definitely make history in SF.

Although several artists have expressed an interest in working
on the project, we would love working on a collaboration with
your organization because of its dynamism and long track record
of fighting for social justice.

Our original idea is to pay minimum wage to youth from several
Bayview Hunters Point public housing projects and make the site
a Violence/Drug Free zone, have them "Paint by numbers" and add
their own personal touch to end youth violence in SF. Such project
is similar to the initial efforts to bring truce in LA between the
Bloods and the Crips.

It would be a healing focal point for all groups currently working
on ending youth violence in SF, and an inspiration for our
criminalized youngsters in Bayview.

We would be grateful, regardless of your decision, to get your
advise on possible grant sources, deals for renting scuffles,
supplies, covering kids salaries. The area to cover is approximately
50 ft on wood. We will also approach Reclaiming the Commons and
Green Earth Alliance (we already have a collaboration), to create a
resting space w/ cultures and benches by the mural.

Please give us a response if interested at your earliest convenience.
This would mean the world to our Bayview Hunters Point community
as well as expanding your already shining proactivity in our troubled
city!

_In solidarity,

mesha

I S F
Idriss Stelley Foundation
(415) 595-8251
(Bilingual Spa. 24-HR Crisis Line)

---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

15) Action Alert- "Anti-Semitism" Bill, Weapons Sale to Israel
From: "Middle East Children's Alliance"


Throughout this past year Rep. Tom Lantos (CA) has been pushing for a
new bill that would create a new office in the State Department to
monitor "anti-Semitism" in the US and abroad. The Global Anti-Semitism Act
that Lantos co-authored this spring states that, "Anti-Semitism has at
times taken the form of vilification of Zionism...and incitement against
Israel."

This action by Lantos follows on the heels of House Resolution 3077 in
fall of 2003. HR 3077, now pending, would create an advisory board that
monitors anti-American and anti-Israeli statements at universities
receiving government funding. This resolution severely restricts academic
freedom and is meant to intimidate professors whose work challenges
mainstream views on Middle East history and US foreign policy.

This bill does not stand in isolation; it is part of a growing trend in
the United States to construe anti-Israel and anti-Zionist views as
"anti-Semitic". The silencing of criticism of the State of Israel and its
discriminatory policies is a dangerous abridgement of our First
Amendment rights. Even the State Department has objected to this bill
stating
that "[i]t could erode our credibility by being interpreted as
favoritism in human rights reporting."

This week 104 prominent Americans sent a letter to Colin Powell
supporting the bill and Lantos won backing for this bill from Rep. Chris
Smith
(NJ).

Please contact Lantos and Smith to express your concern about the
abridgement of our civil rights and liberties.

We cannot allow our government to stifle debate and discussion on these
important issues.

Representative Lantos

Web Site: www.house.gov/lantos
Washington Office:
2413 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-0512
Phone: (202) 225-3531
Fax: (202) 226-4183
Main District Office:
400 S. El Camino Real, #410
San Mateo, CA 94402
Phone: (650) 342-0300
Fax: (650) 375-8270

Representative Smith

Web Site: www.house.gov/chrissmith
Washington Office:
2373 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-3004
Phone: (202) 225-3765
Fax: (202) 225-7768
Main District Office:
1540 Kuser Rd., Ste. A9
Hamilton, NJ 08619
Phone: (609) 585-7878
Fax: (609) 585-9155


US to Sell 5,000 Smart Bombs to Israel
from Haaretz http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/479587.html "The United
States will sell Israel 5,000 smart bombs, for $319
million, according to a report made to Congress a few weeks ago. The funding
will come from the U.S. military aid to Israel...
"The Pentagon told Congress that the bombs are meant to maintain
Israel's qualitative advantage, and advance U.S. strategic and tactical
interests.
"Among the bombs the air force will get are 500 one-ton bunker busters
that can penetrate two-meter-thick cement walls; 2,500 regular one-ton
bombs; 1,000 half-ton bombs; and 500 quarter-ton bombs.
"Government sources said the bomb deal, one of the largest weapons
deals of recent years, did not face any political difficulties, despite the
use Israel has made of U.S.-made F-16s in some of its assassinations in
the territories... The government sources said Israel will not be
asking for any new weapons systems or purchases until after the upcoming
November elections..."

Ask Your Representatives to Oppose the Sale of So-Called "Smart" Bombs
to Israel

TALKING POINTS
* The illegal use of these one-ton bombs in civilian residential areas
of the Palestinian territories has resulted in the mass killing of
hundreds of Palestinian civilians, including many children. In July of
2002, the Israeli occupation forces dropped a one-ton bomb into an
apartment building to kill a single person.

*In the last four years, 3,300 Palestinians (including over 600
children) have been killed by the Israeli military with American weapons.
Giving these bombs to Israel is akin to giving them a green light to
continue targeting Palestinian civilians and children.

*Since 1967, Israel has acted against the occupied Palestinian
population in direct violation of international law, humanitarian
conventions
ad 33 United Nations Security Council Resolutions.

*The US State Department has reported on systematic Israeli violations
of Palestinian human rights: house demolitions, illegal settlement
building, and closures. Furthermore US military aid to Israel is in
violation of US Arms Export Act, which forbids the US government from giving
military assistance to any country that violates internationally
recognized human rights.

*Despite the above information, the US government continues to reward
Israel with over $5 billion a year in aid (at least $500 million of
which is military aid) which is paid entirely by US tax dollars.

*Tell your representatives that U.S. support for Israeli human rights
violations will affect how you vote in the next election.

To find contact information for your representatives go to
www.congress.org


Middle East Children's Alliance

901 Parker Street
Berkeley, California 94710
United States

posted 12:25 PM  0 comments