Progressive Calendar 05.28.08
From: David Shove (shove001tc.umn.edu)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 20:26:36 -0700 (PDT)
            P R O G R E S S I V E   C A L E N D A R    05.28.08

1. WBL rain garden 5.29 3:45pm
2. New Hope demo   5.29 4:30pm
3. Eagan vigil     5.29 4:30pm
4. Northtown vigil 5.29 5pm
5. Work/day/peace  5.29 6:30pm
6. CommunityCop    5.29 7pm
7. Sami/Iraq       5.29 7pm
8. Single payer    5.29 7pm

9. James Petras - Pretexts for imperial war: Pearl Harbor to 9/11

--------1 of 9--------

From: Suzanne Linton <bahiabaubo [at] hotmail.com>
Subject: WBL rain garden 5.29 3:45pm

WBL May 29th rain garden tour
Meet at city hall to ride a bus to locations. Bus leaves the WBL city hall
@ 3:45, returns at 6:30 $5 donation includes a light supper.

Sponsored by the League of Women Voters.
Call Carol Fuller at 651-429-3916 to reserve your space.


--------2 of 9--------

From: Carole Rydberg <carydberg [at] comcast.net>
Subject: New Hope demo 5.29 4:30pm

NWN4P-New Hope demonstration every Thursday 4:30 to 6 PM at the corner
of Winnetka and 42nd.  You may park near Walgreens or in the larger lot
near McDonalds; we will be on all four corners.  Bring your own or use
our signs.


--------3 of 9--------

From: Greg and Sue Skog <family4peace [at] msn.com>
Subject: Eagan vigil 5.29 4:30pm

CANDLELIGHT PEACE VIGIL EVERY THURSDAY from 4:30-5:30pm on the Northwest
corner of Pilot Knob Road and Yankee Doodle Road in Eagan. We have signs
and candles. Say "NO to war!" The weekly vigil is sponsored by: Friends
south of the river speaking out against war.


--------4 of 9--------

From: EKalamboki [at] aol.com
Subject: Northtown vigil 5.29 5pm

NORTHTOWN Peace Vigil every Thursday 5-6pm, at the intersection of Co. Hwy
10 and University Ave NE (SE corner across from Denny's), in Blaine.

Communities situated near the Northtown Mall include: Blaine, Mounds View,
New Brighton, Roseville, Shoreview, Arden Hills, Spring Lake Park,
Fridley, and Coon Rapids.  We'll have extra signs.

For more information people can contact Evangelos Kalambokidis by phone or
email: (763)574-9615, ekalamboki [at] aol.com.


--------5 of 9--------

From: Meredith Aby <awcmere [at] gmail.com>
Subject: Work/day/peace 5.29 6:30pm

We have received yummy donations from butter bakery, Cupcake Cafe, and the
Hampton Park Coop for this year's Work-A-Day dinner.  You don't want to
miss out. Please mark your calandars.

Work A Day for Peace - Dinner Event
THURS, 5/29 from 6:30 - 8:30 pm @ Walker Church basement, 3104 16th Ave S,
Minneapolis

Want Peace?  Work for Justice!  The Anti-War Committee is asking
supporters (and hungry people in general) to work a day for peace, and
join us for a family-friendly thank you dinner event.  Supporters will
enjoy a delicious dinner of pasta, salad & dessert. We request that
supporters donate a day's wages (or an hour's wage -depending on what you
can afford) to cover dinner and support the Anti-War Committee.  There
will be a brief political and cultural program at the event. Money will go
to support local peace organizing and for build up for demonstrations at
the Republican National Convention in September.  For more information:
antiwarcommittee.org, 612.379.3899, info [at] antiwarcommittee.org


--------6 of 9--------

From: Todd H. <proud2liveinjordan [at] yahoo.com>
Subject: CommunityCop 5.29 7pm

Northside ACORN Members,
The next Northside meeting in the lead up to our summer campaign for
more accountable community policing is:
Thursday, May 29th @ 7:00 PM
The Urban League (Plymouth and Penn)

If you have ideas, questions or comments call me a call at (651)
642-9639, Ext. 106

Dylan Whitney Northside Community Organizer Minnesota ACORN 757 Raymond
Ave. #200 Saint Paul, MN 55114 (651) 642-9639, Ext. 127 (651) 642-0060
(Fax) www.acorn.org


--------7 of 9--------

From: Lydia Howell <lhowell [at] visi.com>
Subject: Sami/Iraq 5.29 7pm

Iraqi-American Sami Rasouli
Thursday, May 29, 7:00 p.m. St. James Lutheran Church, 6700 46th Place
North (corner of Hampshire), Crystal. Northwest Neighbors for Peace
Potluck.

Sami Rasouli is an Iraqi-American who has spent the last three years
living in the city of Najaf, Iraq and traveling throughout Iraq in his
work with the Muslim Peacemakers Team (MPT). He will talk about "the
surge" and ongoing occupation, his work for peace and national
reconciliation, and the projects of the MPT. He will also share stories of
people he has met and give a first-hand account of conditions in Iraq
today. Hear about the situation on the ground from a true peacemaker.
FFI: Call 612-522-1861.


--------8 of 9--------

From: Joel Clemmer <joel [at] joelclemmer.org>
Subject: Single payer 5.29 7pm

You are invited to attend an informational session on single payer,
universal health care for all Minnesotans.  The session will feature
Senator John Marty of Roseville, author of a bill that would authorize the
state to create his Minnesota Health Plan, SF 2324.  Senator John Marty
will explain the reform legislation that will provide comprehensive health
care for all Minnesotans.  The event opens with film clips from the PBS
Frontline documentary, "Sick Around the World."

It will be held from 7:00 to 8:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 29, at St.Thomas
More School (formerly St. Luke's) at Summit and Lexington in St. Paul.
Enter through the door at the southeast corner of the school (Oxford and
Summit).  Because of stairs to the meeting room, the session will
unfortunately not be wheelchair accessible.  There is a parking lot on the
north side of the school.


--------9 of 9--------

Provocations as Pretexts for Imperial War: From Pearl Harbor to 9/11
by James Petras
May 26th, 2008
Dissident Voice

Wars in an imperialist democracy cannot simply be dictated by executive
fiat, they require the consent of highly motivated masses who will make
the human and material sacrifices. Imperialist leaders have to create a
visible and highly charged emotional sense of injustice and righteousness
to secure national cohesion and overcome the natural opposition to early
death, destruction and disruption of civilian life and to the brutal
regimentation that goes with submission to absolutist rule by the
military.

The need to invent a cause is especially the case with imperialist
countries because their national territory is not under threat. There is
no visible occupation army oppressing the mass of the people in their
everyday life. The "enemy" does not disrupt everyday normal life - as
forced conscription would and does. Under normal peaceful time, who would
be willing to sacrifice their constitutional rights and their
participation in civil society to subject themselves to martial rule that
precludes the exercise of all their civil freedoms?

The task of imperial rulers is to fabricate a world in which the enemy to
be attacked (an emerging imperial power like Japan) is portrayed as an
"invader" or an "aggressor" in the case of revolutionary movements (Korean
and Indo-Chinese communists) engaged in a civil war against an imperial
client ruler or a "terrorist conspiracy" linked to an anti-imperialist,
anti-colonial Islamic movements and secular states.
Imperialist-democracies in the past did not need to consult or secure mass
support for their expansionist wars; they relied on volunteer armies,
mercenaries and colonial subjects led and directed by colonial officers.
Only with the confluence of imperialism, electoral politics and total war
did the need arise to secure not only consent, but also enthusiasm, to
facilitate mass recruitment and obligatory conscription.

Since all US imperial wars are fought "overseas" - far from any immediate
threats, attacks or invasions - US imperial rulers have the special task
of making the "causus bellicus" immediate, "dramatic" and self-righteously
"defensive".

To this end US Presidents have created circumstances, fabricated incidents
and acted in complicity with their enemies, to incite the bellicose
temperament of the masses in favor of war.

The pretext for wars are acts of provocation which set in motion a series
of counter-moves by the enemy, which are then used to justify an imperial
mass military mobilization leading to and legitimizing war.

State "provocations" require uniform mass media complicity in the lead-up
to open warfare: Namely the portrayal of the imperial country as a victim
of its own over-trusting innocence and good intentions. All four major US
imperial wars over the past 67 years resorted to a provocation, a pretext,
and systematic, high intensity mass media propaganda to mobilize the
masses for war. An army of academics, journalists, mass media pundits and
experts "soften up" the public in preparation for war through
demonological writing and commentary: Each and every aspect of the
forthcoming military target is described as totally evil - hence
"totalitarian" - in which even the most benign policy is linked to demonic
ends of the regime.

Since the "enemy to be" lacks any saving graces and worst, since the
"totalitarian state" controls everything and everybody, no process of
internal reform or change is possible. Hence the defeat of "total evil"
can only take place through "total war". The targeted state and people
must be destroyed in order to be redeemed. In a word, the imperial
democracy must regiment and convert itself into a military juggernaut
based on mass complicity with imperial war crimes. The war against
"totalitarianism" becomes the vehicle for total state control for an
imperial war.

In the case of the US-Japanese war, the US-Korean war, the US-Indochinese
war and the post-September 11 war against an independent secular
nationalist regime (Iraq) and the Islamic Afghan republic, the Executive
branch (with the uniform support of the mass media and congress) provoked
a hostile response from its target and fabricated a pretext as a basis for
mass mobilization for prolonged and bloody wars.

         US-Japan War: Provocation and Pretext for War

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt set high standards for provoking and
creating a pretext for undermining majoritarian anti-war sentiment,
unifying and mobilizing the country for war. Robert Stinnett, in his
brilliantly documented study, Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl
Harbor, demonstrates that Roosevelt provoked the war with Japan by
deliberately following an eight-step program of harassment and embargo
against Japan developed by Lt. Commander Arthur H. McCollum, head of the
Far East desk of the Office of Naval Intelligence. He provides systematic
documentation of US cables tracking the Japanese fleet to Pearl Harbor,
clearly demonstrating that FDR knew in advance of the Japanese attack on
Pearl Harbor following the Japanese fleet virtually every step of the way.
Even more damaging, Stinnett reveals that Admiral H.E. Kimmel, in charge
of the defense of Pearl Harbor, was systematically excluded from receiving
critical intelligence reports on the approaching movements of the Japanese
fleet, thus preventing the defense of the US base. The "sneak" attack by
the Japanese, which caused the death over three thousand American service
men and the destruction of scores of ships and planes, successfully
"provoked" the war FDR had wanted. In the run-up to the Japanese attack,
President Roosevelt ordered the implementation of Naval Intelligence's
October 1940 memorandum, authored by McCollum, for eight specific
measures, which amounted to acts of war including an economic embargo of
Japan, the shipment of arms to Japan's adversaries, the prevention of
Tokyo from securing strategic raw materials essential for its economy and
the denial of port access, thus provoking a military confrontation. To
overcome massive US opposition to war, Roosevelt needed a dramatic,
destructive immoral act committed by Japan against a clearly "defensive"
US base to turn the pacifist US public into a cohesive, outraged,
righteous war machine. Hence the Presidential decision to undermine the
defense of Pearl Harbor by denying the Navy Commander in charge of its
defense, Admiral Kimmel, essential intelligence about anticipated December
7, 1941 attack. The United States "paid the price" with 2,923 Americans
killed and 879 wounded, Admiral Kimmel was blamed and stood trial for
dereliction of duty, but FDR got his war. The successful outcome of FDR's
strategy led to a half-century of US imperial supremacy in the
Asia-Pacific region. An unanticipated outcome, however, was the US and
Japanese imperial defeats on the Chinese mainland and in North Korea by
the victorious communist armies of national liberation.

         Provocation and Pretext for the US War Against Korea

The incomplete conquest of Asia following the US defeat of Japanese
imperialism, particularly the revolutionary upheavals in China, Korea and
Indochina, posed a strategic challenge to US empire builders. Their
massive financial and military aid to their Chinese clients failed to stem
the victory of the anti-imperialist Red Armies. President Truman faced a
profound dilemma - how to consolidate US imperial supremacy in the Pacific
at a time of growing nationalist and communist upheavals when the vast
majority of the war wearied soldiers and civilians were demanding
demobilization and a return to civilian life and economy. Like Roosevelt
in 1941, Truman needed to provoke a confrontation, one that could be
dramatized as an offensive attack on the US (and its "allies") and could
serve as a pretext to overcome widespread opposition to another imperial
war.

Truman and the Pacific military command led by General Douglas Mac Arthur
chose the Korean peninsula as the site for detonating the war. Throughout
the Japanese-Korean war, the Red guerrilla forces led the national
liberation struggle against the Japanese Army and its Korean
collaborators. Subsequent to the defeat of Japan, the national revolt
developed into a social revolutionary struggle against Korean elite
collaborators with the Japanese occupiers. As Bruce Cumings documents in
his classic study, The Origins of the Korean War, the internal civil war
preceded and defined the conflict prior to and after the US occupation and
division of Korea into a "North" and "South". The political advance of the
mass national movement led by the anti-imperialist communists and the
discredit of the US-backed Korean collaborators undermined Truman's
efforts to arbitrarily divide the country "geographically". In the midst
of this class-based civil war, Truman and Mac Arthur created a
provocation: They intervened, establishing a US occupation army and
military bases and arming the counter-revolutionary former Japanese
collaborators. The US hostile presence in a "sea" of anti-imperialist
armies and civilian social movements inevitably led to the escalation of
social conflict, in which the US-backed Korean clients were losing. As the
Red Armies rapidly advanced from their strongholds in the north and joined
with the mass revolutionary social movements in the South they encountered
fierce repression and massacres of anti-imperialist civilians, workers and
peasants, by the US armed collaborators. Facing defeat Truman declared
that the civil war was really an "invasion" by (north) Koreans against
(south) Korea. Truman, like Roosevelt, was willing to sacrifice the US
troops by putting them in the direct fire of the revolutionary armies in
order to militarize and mobilize the US public in defense of imperial
outposts in the southern Korean peninsula.

In the run-up to the US invasion of Korea, Truman, the US Congress and the
mass media engaged in a massive propaganda campaign and purge of peace and
anti-militarist organizations throughout US civil society. Tens of
thousands of individuals lost their jobs, hundreds were jailed and
hundreds of thousands were blacklisted. Trade unions and civic
organizations were taken over by pro-war, pro-empire collaborators.
Propaganda and purges facilitated the propagation of the danger of a new
world war, in which democracy was threatened by expanding Communist
totalitarianism. In reality, democracy was eroded to prepare for an
imperial war to prop up a client regime and secure a military beachhead on
the Asian continent.

The US invasion of Korea to prop up its tyrannical client was presented as
a response to "North" Korea invading "South" Korea and threatening "our"
soldiers defending democracy. The heavy losses incurred by retreating US
troops belied the claim of President Truman that the imperial war was
merely a police action. By the end of the first year of the imperial war,
public opinion turned against the war. Truman was seen as a deceptive
warmonger. In 1952, the electorate elected Dwight Eisenhower on his
promise to end the war. An armistice was agreed to in 1953. Truman's use
of military provocation to detonate a conflict with the advancing Korean
revolutionary armies and then using the pretext of US forces in danger to
launch a war did not succeed in securing a complete victory: The war ended
in a divided Korean nation. Truman left office disgraced and derided, and
the US public turned anti-war for another decade.

            The US Indochinese War: Johnson's Tonkin Pretext

The US invasion and war against Vietnam was a prolonged process, beginning
in 1954 and continuing to the final defeat in 1975. From 1954 to 1960 the
US sent military combat advisers to train the army of the corrupt,
unpopular and failed collaborator regime of President Ngo Dinh Diem. With
the election of President Kennedy, Washington escalated the number of
military advisers, commandos (so called "Green Berets") and the use of
death squads (Plan Phoenix). Despite the intensification of the US
involvement and its extensive role in directing military operations,
Washington's surrogate "South Vietnam" Army (ARNV) was losing the war to
the South Vietnamese National Liberation Army (Viet Cong) and the South
Vietnamese National Liberation Front (NLF), which clearly had the support
of the overwhelming majority of the Vietnamese people.

Following the assassination of President Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson took over
the Presidency and faced the imminent collapse of the US puppet regime and
the defeat of its surrogate Vietnamese Army.

The US had two strategic objectives in launching the Vietnam Was: The
first involved establishing a ring of client regimes and military bases
from Korea, Japan, Philippines, Taiwan, Indochina, Pakistan, Northern
Burma (via the KMT opium lords and Shan secessionists) and Tibet to
encircle China, engage in cross border "commando" attacks by surrogate
military forces and block China's access to its natural markets. The
second strategic objective in the US invasion and occupation of Vietnam
was part of its general program to destroy powerful national liberation
and anti-imperialists movements in Southeast Asia, particularly in
Indochina, Indonesia, the Philippines. The purpose was to consolidate
client regimes, which would provide military bases, de-nationalize and
privatize their raw materials sectors and provide political and military
support to US empire building. The conquest of Indochina was an essential
part of US empire-building in Asia. Washington calculated that by
defeating the strongest Southeast Asian anti-imperialist movement and
country, neighboring countries (especially Laos and Cambodia) would fall
easily.

Washington faced multiple problems. In the first place, given the collapse
of the surrogate "South Vietnam" regime and army, Washington would need to
massively escalate its military presence, in effect substituting its
ground forces for the failed puppet forces and extend and intensify its
bombing throughout North Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. In a word convert a
limited covert war into a massive publicly declared war.

The second problem was the reticence of significant sectors of the US
public, especially college students (and their middle and working class
parents) facing conscription, who opposed the war. The scale and scope of
military commitment envisioned as necessary to win the imperial war
required a pretext, a justification.

The pretext had to be such as to present the US invading armies as
responding to a sneak attack by an aggressor country (North Vietnam).
President Johnson, the Secretary of Defense, the US Naval and Air Force
Command, the National Security Agency, acted in concert. What was referred
to as the Gulf of Tonkin Incident involved a fabricated account of a pair
of attacks, on August 2 and 4, 1964 off the coast of North Vietnam by
naval forces of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam against two US
destroyers the USS Maddox and the USS Turner Joy. Using, as a pretext, the
fabricated account of the "attacks", the US Congress almost unanimously
passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution on August 7, 1964, which granted
President Johnson full power to expand the invasion and occupation of
Vietnam up to and beyond 500,000 US ground troops by 1966. The Gulf of
Tonkin Resolution authorized President Johnson to conduct military
operations throughout Southeast Asia without a declaration of war and gave
him the freedom "to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed
force to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia
Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of freedom".

On August 5, 1964 Lyndon Johnson went on national television and radio
announcing the launching of massive waves of "retaliatory" bombing of
North Vietnamese naval facilities (Operation Pierce Arrow). In 2005,
official documents released from the Pentagon, the National Security
Agency and other government departments have revealed that there was no
Vietnamese attack. On the contrary, according to the US Naval Institute, a
program of covert CIA attacks against North Vietnam had begun in 1961 and
was taken over by the Pentagon in 1964. These maritime attacks on the
North Vietnamese coast by ultra-fast Norwegian-made patrol boats
(purchased by the US for the South Vietnamese puppet navy and under direct
US naval coordination) were an integral part of the operation. Secretary
of Defense McNamara admitted to Congress that US ships were involved in
attacks on the North Vietnamese coast prior to the so-called Gulf of
Tonkin Incident. So much for Johnson's claim of an "unprovoked attack".
The key lie, however, was the claim that the USS Maddox "retaliated"
against an "attacking" Vietnamese patrol boat. The Vietnamese patrol
boats, according to NSA accounts released in 2005, were not even in the
vicinity of the Maddox - they were at least 10,000 yards away and three
rounds were first fired at them by the Maddox which then falsely claimed
it subsequently suffered some damage from a single 14.5 mm machine gun
bullet to its hull. The August 4 "Vietnamese attack" never happened.
Captain John Herrick of the Turner Joy cabled that "many reported contacts
and torpedoes fired appear doubtful. No actual visual sightings (of North
Vietnamese naval boats) by Maddox".

The consequences of the fabrication of the Tonkin Gulf incident and
provocation was to justify an escalation of war that killed 4 million
people in Indochina, maimed, displaced and injured millions more, in
addition to killing 58,000 US service men and wounding a half-million more
in this failed effort in military-driven empire-building. Elsewhere in
Asia, the US empire builders consolidated their client collaborative rule:
In Indonesia, which had one of the largest open Communist Party in the
world, a CIA designed military coup, backed by Johnson in 1966 and led by
General Suharto, murdered over one million trade unionists, peasants,
progressive intellectuals, school teachers and "communists" (and their
family members).

What is striking about the US declaration of war in Vietnam is that the
latter did not respond to the US-directed maritime provocations that
served as a pretext for war. As a result Washington had to fabricate a
Vietnamese response and then use it as the pretext for war.

The idea of fabricating military threats (the Gulf of Tonkin Incident) and
then using them as pretext for the US-Vietnam war was repeated in the case
of the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact Bush Administration
policy makers, who launched the Afghan and Iraq wars, tried to prevent the
publication of a report by the top Navy commander in which he recounted
how the NSA distorted the intelligence reports regarding the Tonkin
incident to serve the Johnson Administration's ardent desire for a pretext
to war.

     Provocation and Pretext: 9/11 and the Afghan-Iraq Invasions

In 2001, the vast majority of the US public was concerned over domestic
matters - the downturn in the economy, corporate corruption (Enron, World
Com etc.), the bursting of the "dot-com" bubble and avoiding any new
military confrontation in the Middle East. There was no sense that the US
had any interest in going to war for Israel, nor launching a new war
against Iraq, especially an Iraq, which had been defeated and humiliated a
decade earlier and was subject to brutal economic sanctions. The US oil
companies were negotiating new agreements with the Gulf States and looked
forward to, with some hope, a stable, peaceful Middle East, marred by
Israel's savaging the Palestinians and threatening its adversaries. In the
Presidential election of 2000, George W, Bush was elected despite losing
the popular vote - in large part because of electoral chicanery (with the
complicity of the Supreme Court) denying the vote to blacks in Florida.
Bush's bellicose rhetoric and emphasis on "national security" resonated
mainly with his Zionist advisers and the pro-Israeli lobby - otherwise,
for the majority of Americans, it fell on deaf ears. The gap between the
Middle East War plans of his principle Zionist appointees in the Pentagon,
the Vice President's office and the National Security Council and the
general US public's concern with domestic issues was striking. No amount
of Zionist authored position papers, anti-Arab, anti-Muslim rhetoric and
theatrics, emanating from Israel and its US based spokespeople, were
making any significant impact on the US public. There was widespread
disbelief that there was an imminent threat to US security through a
catastrophic terrorist attack, which is defined as an attack using
chemical, biological or nuclear weapons of mass destruction. The US public
believed that Israel's Middle East wars and their unconditional US
lobbyists promotion for direct US involvement were not part of their lives
nor in the country's interest.

The key challenge for the militarists in the Bush Administration was how
to bring the US public around to support the new Middle East war agenda,
in the absence of any visible, credible and immediate threat from any
sovereign Middle Eastern country.

The Zionists were well placed in all the key government positions to
launch a worldwide offensive war. They had clear ideas of the countries to
target (Middle East adversaries of Israel). They had defined the ideology
("the war on terror", "preventive defense"). They projected a sequence of
wars. They linked their Middle East war strategy to a global military
offensive against all governments, movements and leaders who opposed US
military-driven empire building. What they needed was to coordinate the
elite into actually facilitating a "catastrophic terrorist incident" that
could trigger the implementation of their publicly stated and defended new
world war.

The key to the success of the operation was to encourage terrorists and to
facilitate calculated and systematic "neglect" - to deliberately
marginalize intelligence agents and agency reports that identified the
terrorists, their plans and methods. In the subsequent investigatory
hearings, it was necessary to foster the image of "neglect", bureaucratic
ineptness and security failures in order to cover up Administration
complicity in the terrorists' success. An absolutely essential element in
mobilizing massive and unquestioning support for the launching of a world
war of conquest and destruction centered in Muslim and Arab countries and
people was a "catastrophic event" that could be linked to the latter.

After the initial shock of 9/11 and the mass media propaganda blitz
saturating every household, questions began to be raised by critics about
the run-up to the event, especially when reports began to circulate from
domestic and overseas intelligence agencies that US policy makers were
clearly informed of preparations for a terrorist attack. After many months
of sustained public pressure, President Bush finally named an
investigatory commission on 9/11, headed by former politicians and
government officials. Philip Zelikow, an academic and former government
official and prominent advocate of "preventative defense" (the offensive
war policies promoted by the Zionist militants in the government) was
named executive director to conduct and write the official "9-11
Commission Report". Zelikow was privy to the need for a pretext, like
9/11, for launching the permanent global warfare, which he had advocated.
With a prescience, which could only come from an insider to the
fabrication leading to war, he had written: "Like Pearl Harbor, this event
would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United
States (sic) might respond with draconian measures, scaling back civil
liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects
and use of deadly force (torture)", (see Catastrophic Terrorism - Tackling
the New Dangers, co-authored by Philip Zelikow and published by Foreign
Affairs in 1998).

Zelikow directed the commission report, which exonerated the
administration of any knowledge and complicity in 9/11, but convinced few
Americans outside of the mass media and Congress. Polls conducted in the
summer of 2003 on the findings of the Commission proceedings and its
conclusions found that a majority of the American public expressed a high
level of distrust and rejection - especially among New Yorkers. The
general public suspected Government complicity, especially when it was
revealed that Zelikow conferred with key figures under investigation, Vice
President Cheney and Presidential "Guru" Karl Rove. In response to
skeptical citizens, Zelikow went on an insane rage, calling the sceptics
"pathogens" or germs whose "infection" needed to be contained. With
language reminiscent of a Hitlerian Social Darwinist diatribe, he referred
to criticisms of the Commission cover up as "a bacteria (that) can sicken
the larger body (of public opinion)". Clearly Zelikow's pseudoscientific
rant reflects the fear and loathing he feels for those who implicated him
with a militarist regime, which fabricated a pretext for a catastrophic
war for Zelikow's favorite state: Israel.

Throughout the 1990's the US and Israeli military-driven empire building
took on an added virulence: Israel dispossessed Palestinians and extended
its colonial settlements. Bush, Senior invaded Iraq and systematically
destroyed Iraqi's military and civil economic infrastructure and fomented
an ethnically cleansed Kurdish client state in the north. Like his
predecessor Ronald Reagan, President George H.W. Bush, Senior backed
anti-communist Islamic irregulars in their conquest of Afghanistan via
their "holy wars" against a leftist secular nationalist regime. At the
same time Bush, Senior attempted to "balance" military empire building
with expanding the US economic empire, by not occupying Iraq and
unsuccessfully trying to restrain Israeli colonial settlements in the West
Bank.

With the rise of Clinton, all restraints on military-driven empire
building were thrown over: Clinton provoked a major Balkan war, viciously
bombing and dismembering Yugoslavia, periodically bombing Iraq and
extending and expanding US military bases in the Gulf States. He bombed
the largest pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, invaded Somalia and
intensified a criminal economic boycott of Iraq leading to the death of an
estimated 500,000 children. Within the Clinton regime, several liberal
pro-Israel Zionists joined the military-driven empire builders in the key
policy making positions. Israeli military expansion and repression reached
new heights as US-financed colonial Jewish settlers and heavily armed
Israeli military forces slaughtered unarmed Palestinian teenagers
protesting the Israeli presence in the Occupied Territories during the
First Intifada. In other words, Washington extended its military
penetration and occupation deeper into Arab countries and societies,
discrediting and weakening the hold of its client puppet regimes over
their people.

The US ended military support for the armed Islamic anti-communists in
Afghanistan once they had served US policy goals by destroying the Soviet
backed secular regime (slaughtering thousands of school teachers in the
process). As a consequence of US-financing, there was a vast, loose
network of well-trained Islamic fighters available for combat against
other target regimes. Many were flown by the Clinton regime into Bosnia
where Islamic fighters fought a surrogate separatist war against the
secular and socialist central government of Yugoslavia. Others were funded
to destabilize Iran and Iraq. They were seen in Washington as shock troops
for future US military conquests. Nevertheless Clinton's imperial
coalition of Israeli colonialists, armed Islamic mercenary fighters,
Kurdish and Chechen separatists broke up as Washington and Israel advanced
toward war and conquest of Arab and Muslim states and the US spread its
military presence in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf States.

Military-driven empire building against existing nation-states was not an
easy sell to the US public or to the market-driven empire builders of
Western Europe and Japan and the newly emerging market-driven empire
builders of China and Russia. Washington needed to create conditions for a
major provocation, which would overcome or weaken the resistance and
opposition of rival economic empire builders. More particularly,
Washington needed a "catastrophic event" to "turn around" domestic public
opinion, which had opposed the first Gulf War and subsequently supported
the rapid withdrawal of US troops from Iraq in 1990.

The events, which took place on September 11, 2001, served the purpose of
American and Israeli military-driven empire builders. The destruction of
the World Trade Center buildings and the deaths of nearly 3,000 civilians,
served as a pretext for a series of colonial wars, colonial occupations,
and global terrorist activities, and secured the unanimous support of the
US Congress and triggered an intense global mass media propaganda campaign
for war.

                The Politics of Military Provocations

Ten years of starving 23 million Iraqi Arabs under the Clinton regime's
economic boycott, interspersed with intense bombing was a major
provocation to Arab communities and citizens around the world. Supporting
Israel's systematic dispossession of Palestinians from their lands,
interspersed with encroachment on the Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem was
a major provocation, which detonated scores of suicide bomb attacks in
retaliation. The construction and operation of US military bases in Saudi
Arabia, home of the Islamic holy city of Mecca, was a provocation to
millions of believers and practicing Muslims. The US and Israeli attack
and occupation of southern Lebanon and the killing of 17,000 Lebanese and
Palestinians were a provocation to Arabs.

Ruled by pusillanimous Arab regimes, servile to US interests, impotent to
respond toward Israeli brutality against Palestinians, Arabs and devout
Muslim citizens were constantly pushed by the Bush and especially Clinton
regime to respond to their continued provocations. Against the vast
disproportion in fire-power between the advanced weaponry of the US and
Israeli occupation forces (the Apache helicopter gun ships, the 5,000
pound bombs, the killer drones, the armored carriers, the cluster bombs,
Napalm and missiles) the secular Arab and Islamic resistance had only
light weaponry consisting of automatic rifles, rocket propelled grenades,
short-range and inaccurate Katusha missiles and machine guns. The only
weapon they possessed in abundance to retaliate was the suicidal "human
bombs".

Up to 9/11, US imperial wars against Arab and Islamic populations were
carried out in the targeted and occupied lands where the great mass of
Arab people lived, worked and enjoyed shared lives. In other words, all
(and for Israel most) of the destructive effects of their wars (the
killings, home and neighborhood destruction and kinship losses) were
products of US and Israeli offensive wars, seemingly immune to retaliatory
action on their own territory.

September 11, 2001 was the first successful large-scale Arab-Islamic
offensive attack on US territory in this prolonged, one-sided war. The
precise timing of 9/11 coincides with the highly visible takeover of US
Middle East war policy by extremist Zionists in the top positions of the
Pentagon, the White House and National Security Council and their
dominance of Congressional Middle East policies. Arab and Islamic
anti-imperialists were convinced that military-driven empire builders were
readying for a frontal assault on all the remaining centers of opposition
to Zionism in the Middle East, i.e. Iraq, Iran, Syria, Southern Lebanon,
the West Bank, Gaza, as well as in Afghanistan in South Asia and Sudan and
Somalia in North-East Africa.

This offensive war scenario had been already spelled out by the American
Zionist policy elite headed by Richard Pearl for the Israeli Institute for
Advanced Strategic and Political Studies in a policy document, entitled A
Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. This was prepared in
1996 for far-right Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu prior to his
taking office.

On September 28, 2000, despite the warnings of many observers, the
infamous author of the massacre of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon,
General Ariel Sharon profaned the Al Aqsa Mosque with his huge military
entourage - a deliberate religious provocation that guaranteed Sharon's
election as Prime Minister from the far right Likud Party. This led to the
Second Intifada and the savage response of the Israelis. Washington's
total support of Sharon merely reinforced the worldwide belief among Arabs
that the "Zionist Solution" of massive ethnic purges was on Washington's
agenda.

The pivotal group linking US military-driven empire builders with their
counterparts in Israel was the major influential Zionist public policy
group promoting what they dubbed the "Project for a New American Century"
(PNAC). In 1998 they set out a detailed military-driven road map to US
world domination (the so-called "Project for a New American Century"),
which just happened to focus on the Middle East and just happened to
coincide exactly with Tel Aviv's vision of a US-Israel dominated Middle
East. In 2000 the PNAC Zionist ideologues published a strategy paper
"Rebuilding America's Defenses", which laid down the exact guidelines
which incoming Zionist policy makers in the top spheres of the Pentagon
and White House would follow. PNAC directives included establishing
forward military bases in the Middle East, increasing military spending
from 3% to 4% of GNP, a military attack to overthrow Saddam Hussein in
Iraq, and military confrontation with Iran using the pretext of the
threats of "weapons of mass destruction".

The PNAC agenda could not advance without a catastrophic "Pearl Harbor"
type of event, as US military-driven empire builders, Israelis and US
Zionist policy makers recognized early on. The deliberate refusal by the
White House and its subordinate 16 intelligence agencies and the Justice
Department to follow up precise reports of terrorist entry, training,
financing and action plans was a case of deliberate "negligence": The
purpose was to allow the attack to take place and then to immediately
launch the biggest wave of military invasions and state terrorist
activities since the end of the Indochina War.

Israel, which had identified and kept close surveillance of the
terrorists, insured that the action would proceed without any
interruption. During the 9/11 attacks, its agents even had the presumption
to video and photograph the exploding towers, while dancing in wild
celebration, anticipating Washington's move toward Israel's militarist
Middle East strategy.

      Military-Driven Empire Building: The Zionist Connection

Militaristic empire building preceded the rise to power of the Zionist
Power Configuration (ZPC) in the George W. Bush Administration. The
pursuit of it after 9/11 was a joint effort between the ZPC and
long-standing US militarists, like Rumsfeld and Cheney. The provocations
against Arabs and Muslims leading up to the attacks were induced by both
the US and Israel. The current implementation of the militarist strategy
toward Iran is another joint effort of Zionist and US militarists.

What the Zionists did provide, which the US militarists lacked, was an
organized mass-based lobby with financing, propagandists and political
backing for the war. The principle government ideologues, media "experts",
spokespeople, academics, speechwriters and advisers for the war were
largely drawn from the ranks of US Zionism. The most prejudicial aspects
of the Zionist role was in the implementation of war policy, namely the
systematic destruction and dismantling of the Iraqi state. Zionist
policymakers promoted the US military occupation and supported a massive
US military build-up in the region for sequential wars against Iran, Syria
and other adversaries of Israeli expansion.

In pursuit of military-driven empire building in accord with Israel's own
version, the Zionist militarists in the US government exceeded their
pre-9/11 expectations, raising military spending from 3% of GNP in 2000 to
6% in 2008, growing at a rate of 13% per year during their ascendancy from
2001-2008. As a result they raised the US budget deficit to over $10
trillion dollars by 2010, double the 1997 deficit, and driving the US
economy and its economic empire toward bankruptcy.

The Zionist American policy makers were blind to the dire economic
consequences for US overseas economic interests because their main
strategic consideration was whether US policy enhanced Israel's military
dominance in the Middle East. The cost (in blood and treasure) of using
the US to militarily destroy Israel's adversaries was of no concern.

To pursue the Zionist-US military-driven imperial project of a New Order
in the Middle East, Washington needed to mobilize the entire population
for a series of sequential wars against the anti-imperialist, anti-Israeli
countries of the Middle East and beyond. To target the multitude of
Israeli adversaries, American Zionists invented the notion of a "Global
War on Terrorism". The existing climate of national and international
opinion was decidedly hostile to the idea of fighting sequential wars, let
alone blindly following zealous Zionist extremists. Sacrificing American
lives for Israeli power and the Zionist fantasy of a US-Israeli
"Co-Prosperity Sphere" dominating the Middle East could not win public
backing in the US, let alone in the rest of the world.

Top policymakers, especially the Zionist elite, nurtured the notion of a
fabricated pretext - an event which would shock the US public and Congress
into a fearful, irrational and bellicose mood, willing to sacrifice lives
and democratic freedoms. To rally the US public behind a military-driven
imperial project of invasion and occupation in the Middle East required
"another Pearl Harbor".

      The Terror Bombing: White House and Zionist Complicity

Every level of the US government was aware that Arab extremists were
planning a spectacular armed attack in the United States. The FBI and the
CIA had their names and addresses; the President's National Security
Adviser Condeleeza Rice publicly admitted that the Executive branch knew
that a terrorist hijacking would occur - only they had expected, she
claimed, a "traditional hijacking" and not the use of "airliners as
missiles". The Attorney General John Ashcroft was acutely aware and
refused to fly on commercial airliners. Scores of Israeli spies were
living blocks away from some of the hijackers in Florida, informing
headquarters on their movements. Overseas intelligence agencies, notably
in Germany, Russia, Israel and Egypt claimed to have provided information
to their US counterparts on the "terrorist plot". The President's office,
the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the FBI allowed the attackers
to prepare their plans, secure funding, proceed to the airports, board the
planes and carry out their attacks - all carrying US visas (mostly issued
in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia - once a prominent site for processing Arabs to
fight in Afghanistan) and with "pilots" who were US-trained. As soon as
the terrorists took control of the flights, the Air Force was notified of
the hijacking but top leaders "inexplicably" delayed moves to intercept
the planes allowing the attackers to reach their objectives - the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The military-driven empire builders and their Zionist allies immediately
seized the pretext of a single military retaliatory attack by non-state
terrorists to launch a worldwide military offensive against a laundry list
of sovereign nations. Within 24 hours, ultra-Zionist Senator Joseph
Lieberman, in a prepared speech, called for the US to attack "Iran, Iraq
and Syria" without any proof that any of these nations, all full members
of the United Nations, were behind the hijackings. President Bush declared
a "Global War on Terror" (GWOT) and launched the invasion of Afghanistan
and approved a program of extraterritorial, extrajudicial assassinations,
kidnappings and torture throughout the world. Clearly the Administration
put into operation a war strategy, publicly advocated and prepared by
Zionist ideologues long before 9/11. The President secured nearly
unanimous support from Congress for the first Patriot Act, suspending
fundamental democratic freedoms at home. He demanded that US client-states
and allies implement their own versions of authoritarian anti-terrorist
laws to persecute, prosecute and jail any and all opponents of US and
Israeli empire building in the Middle East and elsewhere. In other words,
September 11, 2001 became the pretext for a virulent and sustained effort
to create a new world order centered on a US military-driven empire and a
Middle East built around Israeli supremacy.

      Provocations and Pretexts: the Israeli-US War Against Iran

The long, unending, costly and losing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
undermined international and national support for the Zionist-promoted New
American Century project. US militarists and their advisers and ideologues
needed to create a new pretext for the US plans to subdue the Middle East
and especially to attack Iran. They turned their propaganda campaign on
Iran's legal non-military nuclear energy program and fabricated evidence
of Iran's direct military involvement in supporting the Iraqi resistance
to US occupation. Without proof they claimed Iran had supplied the
weapons, which bombed the American "Green Zone" in Baghdad. The Israeli
lobby argued that Iranian training and weapons had been instrumental in
defeating the American-backed Iraqi mercenaries in the major southern city
of Basra. Top Zionists in the Treasury Department have organized a
worldwide economic boycott against Iran. Israel has secured the support of
top Democrat and Republican Congressional leaders for a military attack on
Iran. But is Iran's existence a sufficient pretext or will a
"catastrophic" incident be necessary?

           Conclusion: Provocations and Imperial Wars:
         "Behind every imperial war there is a Great Lie"

One of the most important political implications of our discussion of the
US government's resort to provocations and deception to launch imperial
wars is that the vast majority of the American people are opposed to
overseas wars. Government lies at the service of military interventions
are necessary to undermine the American public's preference for a foreign
policy based on respect for self-determination of nations. The second
implication however is that the peaceful sentiments of the majority can be
quickly overturned by the political elite through deception and
provocations amplified and dramatized through their constant repetition
through the unified voice of the mass media. In other words, peaceful
American citizens can be transformed into irrational chauvinist
militarists through the "propaganda of the deed" where executive authority
disguises its own acts of imperial attacks as "defensive" and its
opponent's retaliation as unprovoked aggression against a "peace loving"
United States.

All of the executive provocations and deceptions are formulated by a
Presidential elite but willingly executed by a chain of command involving
anywhere from dozens to hundreds of operatives, most of whom knowingly
participate in deceiving the public, but rarely ever unmask the illegal
project either out of fear, loyalty or blind obedience.

The notion, put forward by upholders of the "integrity" of the war policy,
that given such a large number of participants, "someone" would have
"leaked" the deception, the systematic provocations and the manipulation
of the public, has been demonstrated to be false. At the time of the
"provocation" and the declaration of "war" when Congress unanimously
approved "Presidential Authority" to use force, few if any writers or
journalists have ever raised serious questions: Executives operating under
the mantle of "defending a peaceful country" from "unprovoked treacherous
enemies" have always secured the complicity or silence of peacetime
critics who choose to bury their reservations and investigations in a time
of "threats to national security". Few academics, writers or journalists
are willing to risk their professional standing, when all the mass media
editors and owners, political leaders and their own professional cohorts
froth over "standing united with our President in times of unparalleled
mortal threat to the nation" as happened in 1941, 1950, 1964 and 2001.

With the exception of World War Two, each of the subsequent wars led to
profound civilian political disillusion and even rejection of the
fabrications that initially justified the war. Popular disenchantment with
war led to a temporary rejection of militarism - until the next
"unprovoked" attack and call to arms. Even in the case of the Second World
War there was massive civilian outrage against a large standing army and
even large-scale military demonstrations at the end of the war, demanding
the GI's return to civilian life. The demobilization occurred despite
Government efforts to consolidate a new empire based on occupation of
countries in Europe and Asia in the wake of Germany and Japan's defeat.

The underlying structural reality, which has driven American Presidents to
fabricate pretexts for wars, is informed by a military-driven conception
of empire. Why did Roosevelt not answer the Japanese imperial economic
challenge by increasing the US economic capacity to compete and produce
more efficiently instead of supporting a provocative boycott called by the
decaying European colonial powers in Asia? Was it the case that, under
capitalism, a depression-ridden, stagnant economy and idle work force
could only be mobilized by the state for a military confrontation?

In the case of the US-Korean War, could not the most powerful post-World
War US economy look toward exercising influence via investments with a
poor, semi-agrarian, devastated, but unified, Korea, as it was able to do
in Germany, Japan and elsewhere after the war?

Twenty years after spending hundreds of billions of dollars and suffering
500,000 dead and wounded to conquer Indochina, European, Asian and US
capital entered Vietnam peacefully on the invitation of its government,
hastening its integration into the world capitalist market via investments
and trade.

It is clear that Plato's not-so "noble lie", as practiced by America's
Imperial Presidents, to deceive their citizens for "higher purposes" has
led to the use of bloody and cruel means to achieve grotesque and ignoble
ends.

The repetition of fabricated pretexts to engage in imperial wars is
embedded in the dual structure of the US political system, a
military-driven empire and a broad-based electorate. To pursue the former
it is essential to deceive the latter. Deception is facilitated by the
control of mass media whose war propaganda enters every home, office and
classroom with the same centrally determined message. The mass media
undermine what remains of alternative information flowing from primary and
secondary opinion leaders in the communities and erode personal values and
ethics. While military-driven empire building has resulted in the killing
of millions and the displacement of tens of millions, market-driven empire
building imposes its own levy in terms of massive exploitation of labor,
land and livelihoods.

As has been the case in the past, when the lies of empire wear thin,
public disenchantment sets in, and the repeated cries of "new threats"
fail to mobilize opinion. As the continued loss of life and the
socio-economic costs erodes the conditions of everyday life, mass media
propaganda loses its effectiveness and political opportunities appear. As
after WWII, Korea, Indochina and today with Iraq and Afghanistan, a window
of political opportunity opens. Mass majorities demand changes in policy,
perhaps in structures and certainly an end to the war. Possibilities open
for public debate over the imperial system, which constantly reverts to
wars and lies and provocations that justify them.

                               Epilogue

Our telegraphic survey of imperial policy-making refutes the conventional
and commonplace notion that the decision making process leading up to war
is open, public and carried out in accordance with the constitutional
rules of a democracy. On the contrary, as is commonplace in many spheres
of political, economic, social and cultural life, but especially in
questions of war and peace, the key decisions are taken by a small
Presidential elite behind closed doors, out of sight and without
consultation and in violation of constitutional provisions. The process of
provoking conflict in pursuit of military goals is never raised before the
electorate. There are never investigations by independent investigatory
committees.

The closed nature of the decision making process does not detract from the
fact that these decisions were "public" in that they were taken by elected
and non-elected public officials in public institutions and directly
affected the public. The problem is that the public was kept in the dark
about the larger imperial interests that were at stake and the deception
that would induce them to blindly submit to the decisions for war.
Defenders of the political system are unwilling to confront the
authoritarian procedures, the elite fabrications and the unstated imperial
goals. Apologists of the military-driven empire builders resort to
irrational and pejorative labeling of the critics and skeptics as
"conspiracy theorists". For the most part, prestigious academics conform
closely to the rhetoric and fabricated claims of the executors of imperial
policy.

Everywhere and at all times groups, organizations and leaders meet in
closed meetings, before going "public". A minority of policymakers or
advocates meet, debate and outline procedures and devise tactics to secure
decisions at the "official" meeting. This common practice takes place when
any vital decisions are to be taken whether it is at local school boards
or in White House meetings. To label the account of small groups of public
officials meeting and taking vital decisions in "closed" public meetings
(where agendas, procedures and decisions are made prior to formal "open"
public meetings) as "conspiracy theorizing" is to deny the normal way in
which politics operate. In a word, the "conspiracy" labelers are either
ignorant of the most elementary procedures of politics or they are
conscious of their role in covering up the abuses of power of today's
state terror merchants.

            Professor Zelikow - Where do we go from here?

The key figure in and around the Bush Administration who actively promoted
a "new Pearl Harbor" and was at least in part responsible for the policy
of complicity with the 9/11 terrorists was Philip Zelikow. Zelikow, a
prominent Israel-Firster, is a government academic, whose expertise was in
the nebulous area of "catastrophic terrorism" - events which enabled US
political leaders to concentrate executive powers and violate
constitutional freedoms in pursuit of offensive imperial wars and in
developing the "public myth". Philip Shenon's book, The Commission: The
Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation, pinpoints Zelikow's
strategic role in the Bush Administration in the lead up to 9/11, the
period of "complicit neglect", in its aftermath, the offensive global war
period, and in the government's cover-up of its complicity in the terror
attack.

Prior to 9/11 Zelikow provided a "blueprint" for the process of an
executive seizing extreme power for global warfare. He outlined a sequence
in which a "catastrophic terrorist event" could facilitate the absolute
concentration of power, followed by the launching of offensive wars for
Israel (as he publicly admitted). In the run-up to 9/11 and the multiple
wars, he served as a member of National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice's
National Security Council transition team (2000-2001), which had intimate
knowledge of terrorist plans to seize US commercial flights, as Rice
herself publicly admitted ("conventional hijackings" was her term).
Zelikow was instrumental in demoting and disabling the counter-terrorism
expert Richard Clark from the National Security Council, the one agency
tracking the terrorist operation. Between 2001-2003, Zelikow was a member
of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. This was the
agency, which had failed to follow-up and failed to pursue the key
intelligence reports identifying terrorist plans. Zelikow, after playing a
major role in undermining intelligence efforts to prevent the terrorist
attack, became the principle author of the 2002 National Security Strategy
of the United States, which prescribed Bush's policy of military invasion
of Iraq and targeted Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and other independent
Arab and Muslim countries and political entities. Zelikow's "National
Security Strategy" paper was the most influential directive shaping the
global state terrorist policies of the Bush regime. It also brought US war
policies in the closest alignment with the regional military aspirations
of the Israeli state since the founding of Israel. Indeed, this was why
the former Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu stated at Bar Ilan University
that the 9/11 attack and the US invasion of Iraq were "good for Israel"
(see Haaretz, April 16, 2008).

Finally Zelikow, as Bush's personal appointee as the Executive Director of
the 9/11 Commission, coordinated the cover-up of the Administration policy
of complicity in 9/11 with the Vice President's office. While Zelikow is
not considered an academic heavyweight, his ubiquitous role in the design,
execution and cover-up of the world-shattering events surrounding 9/11 and
its aftermath mark him as one of the most dangerous and destructive
political "influentials" in the shaping and launching of Washington's
past, present and future catastrophic wars.

James Petras, a former Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University,
New York, owns a 50-year membership in the class struggle, is an adviser
to the landless and jobless in Brazil and Argentina, and is co-author of
Globalization Unmasked (Zed Books). Petras. forthcoming book, Zionism and
US Militarism, is due from Clarity Press, Atlanta, in August 2008. He can
be reached at: jpetras [at] binghamton.edu. Read other articles by James, or
visit James's website.

This article was posted on Monday, May 26th, 2008 at 6:00 am and is filed
under Disinformation, Imperialism, Military/Militarism, Zionism. Send to a
friend.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   - David Shove             shove001 [at] tc.umn.edu
   rhymes with clove         Progressive Calendar
                     over 2225 subscribers as of 12.19.02
              please send all messages in plain text no attachments

 To GO DIRECTLY to an item, eg
 --------8 of x--------
 do a find on
 --8
                            impeach bush & cheney
                            impeach bush & cheney
                            impeach bush & cheney
                            impeach bush & cheney





  • (no other messages in thread)

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.