Showing posts with label war on terror propaganda. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war on terror propaganda. Show all posts

Oct 22, 2011

Bush's Iraq War by the Numbers

Pres. George W. Bush in 2003 aboard the
USS Abraham Lincoln


What sick bunch of callow human beings inflicted upon the world this misery of the Iraq War? Lied to the troops and Marines of Operation Iraqi Freedom who swore the oath and committed their honor, to be betrayed by weak, miserable men and women? We know exactly whom these people are.

By Brad Friedman

War criminal - all
George W. Bush adviser Kenneth Adelman predicted the War in Iraq would be a "cakewalk". As President Barack Obama announced today that all U.S. military troops would finally be leaving the "cakewalk" by year's end after 9 deadly years (and as Fox "News" was busy ignoring the historic announcement), ThinkProgress put together a few numbers from what they describe as "The World's Costliest Cakewalk"... [numbers below vastly understate the damage]:
8 years, 260 days since Secretary of State Colin Powell presented evidence of Saddam Hussein’s biological weapons program

8 years, 215 days since the March 20, 2003 invasion of Iraq

8 years, 175 days since President George W. Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln

4,479 U.S. military fatalities

30,182 U.S. military injuries

468 contractor fatalities

Unknown number of contractors working in support of U.S. mission injured

103,142 – 112,708 documented civilian deaths

2.8 million internally displaced Iraqis

$806 billion in federal funding for the Iraq War through FY2011

$3 – $5 trillion in total economic cost to the United States of the Iraq war according to economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Blimes

$60 billion in U.S. expenditures lost to waste and fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001

Zero weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq

Mar 1, 2010

Pakistan Maverick Khan Looks for America in All the Strange Places

- ‘Americans can’t tell a Taliban extremist from a Sufi moderate cleric, but can pick a Methodist from a Lutheran in seconds’ -

Pakistan’s public figures have no real analogues in America.

Domestic Pakistan, under constant domestic terrorist attack (unlike America), cannot be asserted as an America in the Middle-East, though strains in the fractured culture evince an admiration for the U.S.—both qualified and yet unreserved. No contradiction there. That’s the reality of this cultural strain of this enigmatic place known as Pakistan.

Gordon Duff’s piece, Looking for America in the Strangest of Places, sheds light on an intriguing political figure in Pakistan, Imran Khan.

Imran Khan (not to be confused with Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb), is part Arnold Schwarzenegger, part Ross Perot with a little Warren Beatty thrown in.

Duff just arrived home from an informational trip to Pakistan and met with Khan, along with American writer and analyst, Jeff Gates.

Following is an excerpt from Duff’s piece on Khan, who offers candid insights into Pakistan, American ignorance and the violence to which U.S. policy appears at time addicted with all the joy of heroin addict.

Khan appears he may be the type of leader with sufficient popular support and commitment to ideals that America just may make an effort to reach out and engage in the incomprehensible monolith that the world seems to have become at our behest.


Looking for America in the Strangest of Places

By Gordon Duff

Traveling around Pakistan is a challenge for an American nowadays. It’s not the highways. It isn’t even that our second vehicle was ‘armed to the teeth’ as we weaved through traffic and up and down superhighways and dusty back roads. The difficulty is the landscape itself, a land, at times, very American in appearance and yet strange and wondrous too. It was the similarities that scared us.

We were there last week as Americans for a series of lectures and meetings to discuss economics and regional politics at universities and ‘think tanks.’ Pakistan, a country of poverty and wealth, a nation threatened like no other, was much like looking in a mirror, perhaps a mirror into America’s future.

A couple of nights ago, author and economist Jeff Gates and I along with Editor Raja Mujtaba of Opinion Maker, the controversial open forum where academics, military leaders, and political dissidents from that region fight it out daily on the internet, met with Pakistani political leader, Imran Khan.

Meeting Khan was important to us because he is the only political figure in Pakistan who is widely respected in Afghanistan, a nation that could, potentially, bog American down for years in a bizarre and indefinable combination of ‘counter-terrorism’ and traditional tribal warfare. Only Khan is respected on both sides of the border, Khan and General Aslam Beg, former Army Chief of Staff in Pakistan.

That there is suspicion between Pakistan and Afghanistan is an understatement. Millions of Afghanis and Pakistanis are, not only ethnically identical, but members of the same tribes, even families, which poses its own problems.

Today, up to 4 million refugees from Afghanistan live in Pakistan’s tribal areas. These refugees combined with elements of a Pakistani Taliban have created a drain on Pakistan’s resources, a breeding ground for religious extremism and provided safe havens for Taliban sects that are clearly extremist, terrorist, and criminal in nature.

With as many as 50 million people considering themselves ‘Taliban,’ most non-extremist, differentiating between good and bad ‘Taliban’ has been difficult and, in the case of American efforts, something approached with questionable intent.

Not that many years ago, the United States and Pakistan trained and armed the Mujahedeen, both Afghan and foreign fighters to overthrow Soviet dominance in Afghanistan. A generation later, our failure to demilitarize and rehabilitate these elements and the region has led to untold instability, world terrorism, and a war against Pakistan supported by terrorist elements aided by massive funding and sophisticated weaponry and training whose origin can be traced with little difficulty to India and Israel.

Man or Legend

If a man can epitomize ‘controversy,’ it is Imran Khan. Few people define the hopes of Islamic moderates as does Khan. This ‘Khan’s’ empire, a superstar athlete of the cricket world, a sport unknown to most Americans, consists of that huge portion of the world our maps used to color pink, the regions we used to call the British Empire, a region covering 40 percent of the globe. When the British conquered the world, they took their most beloved sport—cricket—with them.

What if an American baseball pitcher won 30 games a year with an earned run average of 2.0 and batted .400? Then surround him with controversy, a Muslim with a Jewish ex-wife; looks and charm; and a reputed ‘way with the ladies’ that keeps the tabloids stalking him and, oh, I forgot to mention this, make him the head of a political party. You will now begin to understand the enigma of Imran Khan.

It gets worse.

He is Pashtu, a Pashtun, one of the same ethnic group Americans know as the Taliban, a group well out of the mainstream in Pakistani politics. In a country ruled by the ‘Europeanized’ Punjabi and Sindh, a Pashtu political leader makes Barack Hussein Obama seem ‘mainstream.’

It gets worse still.

Khan is not only a controversial celebrity but an outspoken reformer fighting government corruption. Khan is a friend of Americans but a strong enemy of American influence in Pakistan and very critical of the west for its mistrust of Islam. He believes the west doesn’t know the difference between a Taliban extremist and a moderate Sufi cleric but can pick out a Methodist from a Lutheran in seconds.

Imagine an American sports hero who is an Oxford trained economist, who sponsored the nation’s largest cancer center, and who is now building a university for those who would never otherwise see a higher education.

We had to meet this guy.

His political offices were moderate. We had visited political parties in Pakistan that looked more like Ivy League campuses. Khan’s party was used furniture, peeling paint, and the sound of work, footsteps up and down stairs and a lot of noise. It was an election night in Rawalpindi. A seat in the national assembly was up for grabs and charges of election fraud had charged the air.

I almost felt like I was back in America. For the office of a man whose very mention that I planned to meet him had a flight attendant asking for my autograph, it was unexpected. Khan wasn’t a dilettante or elitist, he is a fighter, capable of holding his own in any political arena. The language was easy to understand. He believed what he said and knew what he was talking about.

We weren’t used to that.

If you ignored the TV crews outside, you noticed a few things. There were no lights; power had been cut off, a result of terrorism’s costs to Pakistan. Khan had a small rechargeable lantern on his desk; he turned it on so we could find our way and had us sit down. It was clear that we hadn’t entered the corridors of power. This was something else entirely.

We had walked in on a crusade for political accountability and reform. If this were America, it would have been that ‘third party’ we all dream of but never get.

Not what we expected.

When Khan called President Musharraf ‘George Bush’s poodle’ and threatened protests when Bush visited Pakistan in 2006, he was placed under house arrest. When Musharraf declared a ‘national emergency’ in 2007, Khan called for his immediate arrest and execution for treason. Khan was jailed for this, went on a hunger strike and was released.

You can’t help but love a guy like that!

Khan wasn’t a tabloid playboy, though he looked the part, that and more, nor was he much like anything we have seen in America in many years. Khan believed what he said and could more than hold his own on any subject from economics to foreign policy with depth, clarity, and understanding, not only of economic theory but someone with solutions, not just ‘sound bites’ but solid programs, economic reform, political justice.

All of this was steeped in a passion and a drive you could feel across the room. It was electric. Mostly, however, I could feel his frustration. Reforming politics is impossible, certainly in America, at the best of times. Pakistan is beset by enemies on all sides, terror attacks are daily across the country and the threats are far worse than debt and unemployment. People are fighting for their lives.

Interview Turned Around

Khan asked us about everything. I was grilled about American veterans, how they were treated, how their families suffered during multiple deployments, how much Americans sacrificed in a war he believes is being handled without adequate understanding of the factors involved and the solutions available.

Khan wanted to know everything about America, as we saw it, opinions on the war, 9/11, and why Americans believed what the press told them about Pakistan and moderate Islam. His point, of course, is that extremism in Pakistan’s tribal areas was the result, as it had been in Afghanistan, of lack of education.

The aftermath of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union had forgotten to rebuild the battleground of that war. Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan, where the millions of refugees had settled, areas now subject to poverty and extremism as the ‘war on terror’ had virtually collapsed Pakistan’s economy and destroyed much of its infrastructure, more than any western nation had imagined or bothered to look into.

Few European or American schools have soldiers, armored personnel carriers, and ‘TSA level’ security at their children’s schools. ...

What We Saw

Pakistan’s current president, Zardari, may actually be less popular than ‘W’ after either Katrina or the infamous ‘Bush financial crash’ when real estimates of approval entered the single digit range. Being an ‘unsuccessful politician’ in Pakistan and hated by ‘party line’ newspapers is a clear sign of personal integrity.

Zardari actually passed a law making it a crime to tell jokes about him. This must be hard on a lot of people. Pakistan is a country of folks who know humor. Sometimes it is all that keeps them alive.

Meeting an honest politician, one willing to tell Bush, Israel, or anyone else exactly how he feels, to the point of doing jail time for it, is a bit of a shock. You could ask Khan something and he would simply tell you what he thinks, tell you the truth. Combining this with being educated, devoutly religious, with an established history for charity work and paying the price for standing up for what is right, even at great personal cost, Imran Khan is an enigma.

How Would Americans View Khan?

Jeff and I looked at each other the second we left the door. Jeff remembering his years as Chief Counsel for Senate Finance hit on it immediately: ‘We could get this guy elected President of the United States in a flat minute.’

Thinking back over the last 40 years, there was nobody who could stand up to this guy in terms of media, debate, programs, especially if women were voting.

What would Americans really do?

Khan would be crucified by the press. He would demand an end to corruption, end foreign influence in Washington, Israel, China, India, Saudi Arabia, everywhere. The wars would end, we would begin addressing the root causes of terrorism, defense spending would plummet, and America would start working again.

He would be dead in a week.

Why think about a guy from Pakistan?

The information revolution has made the world small. Imran Khan is ‘out there,’ on YouTube, the Internet, not so much in America but people know him. He isn’t perfect like some Americans, you know the ones we are talking about, all ‘goodness and light’ on the outside and underneath it all, corrupt, addicted, lives of failure reinvented by money, power, and foreign lobbyists.

America is at war, and Pakistan is the front lines. When you talk terrorism, Pakistan is the victim, not the United States. They get it from every side, American papers, Islamic extremists along with India/Israel and games some of us can only imagine or talk of in whispers as ‘conspiracy theory.’ When a school is blown up in Pakistan, the list of potential suspects often has some names that would surprise many Americans.

With a world in the hands of folks like Bush or Obama, Gordon Brown or Tony Blair and the EU folks, Angela Merkel of Germany and Nicolas Sarkozy of France, anyone with signs of human life and intelligence is always welcome. Italy’s prime minister spends more money on lesbian prostitutes than an American senator can steal in a lifetime. Imran Khan is a saint in comparison.

- Gordon Duff is a Marine Vietnam veteran, grunt and 100 percent disabled vet. He has been a United Nations diplomat, defense contractor, and is a widely published expert on military and defense issues. He is active in the financial industry and is a specialist on global trade. Gordon Duff acts as political and economic advisor to a number of governments in Africa and the Middle East. Duff serves as senior editor for VeteransToday.com.

Jan 8, 2010

Moving from Fear

Obama’s Security Review on Attempted Attack speech yesterday signals a move away from instilling fear into the hearts of the American people as a prime political objective, perhaps a critical moment in this administration.

Said Obama, “Here at home, we will strengthen our defenses, but we will not succumb to a siege mentality that sacrifices the open society and liberties and values that we cherish as Americans, because great and proud nations don't hunker down and hide behind walls of suspicion and mistrust. That is exactly what our adversaries want, and so long as I am President, we will never hand them that victory. We will define the character of our country, not some band of small men intent on killing innocent men, women and children.”

We shall see. But the language certainly sounds like the presidential repudiation of Bush-Cheney that has been absent in presidential rhetoric [an important political deliverable in any administration].

Base maintenance and brand ("Change") management are axiomatic, and this message—'the fear is gone'—is tailor-made for the intangible excitement and hope that swept Obama into office against the odious and petulant John McCain who still carries the banner of the worst of the Bush-Cheney fear mongers and war makers operating through the contemporary Republican establishment and Joe Lieberman.

I know this is presidential rhetoric and not policy change, but count me as one who still has hope.

- via mal contends

Oct 7, 2009

Withdraw Now

President Obama appears committed to a foolish and depraved course of action in Afghanistan.

Rethink Afghanistan.

May 31, 2009

Rice and Cheney, People Who Don't Know

Update: "The one trait that defines establishment pundits more than any other is a pathological inability ever to accept blame or admit error. That's because they work in the most accountability-free profession in America, where people like Bill Kristol (with a record like this) and Jeffrey Goldberg (with a record like this) get promoted despite no retractions or remorse, and establishment media stars in general can pretend that they bear no responsibility for enabling the abuses and crimes of the Bush years."
- Glenn Greenwald, Salon

First-rate Sunday morning reads in the New York Times and Washington Post rebutting the always foolish Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice.

Frank Rich and Richard A. Clarke, the national coordinator for security and counterterrorism under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, rip apart the recent Cheney-Rice lies that even now continue apace with the "unsettling return to the post-9/11 dynamic (Frank Rich)" on the part of the corporate media and Congressional Democrats.

Writes Clarke:


'Unless you were there, in a position of responsibility after September 11, you cannot possibly imagine the dilemmas that you faced in trying to protect Americans,' Condoleezza Rice said last month as she admonished a Stanford University student who questioned the Bush-era interrogation program. ...

Yet listening to Cheney and Rice, it seems that they want to be excused for the measures they authorized after the attacks on the grounds that 9/11 was traumatic. ...

I have little sympathy for this argument. ...

Careful analysis could have replaced the impulse to break all the rules, even more so because the Sept. 11 attacks, though horrifying, should not have surprised senior officials. ...

Yes, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice may have been surprised by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 -- but it was because they had not listened. And their surprise led them to adopt extreme counterterrorism techniques -- but it was because they rejected, without analysis, the tactics the Clinton administration had used. The measures they uncritically adopted, which they simply assumed were the best available, were in fact unnecessary and counterproductive.
The reaction of thinking journalists when Rice and Cheney began their we know better, you had to be there line should have been extreme skepticism and consider-the-source, there-they-go-again ridicule.

As President Obama is aware, this skepticism resides in the electorate that put him into office and remains impatient for a complete presidential repudiation and reversal of Cheney-Rice disgrace.

Mar 19, 2009

U.S. Still Holding Innocents

From Andrew O. Selsky:

Ex-Bush admin official: Many at Gitmo are innocent
Many detainees locked up at Guantanamo were innocent men swept up by U.S. forces unable to distinguish enemies from noncombatants, a former Bush administration official said Thursday. 'There are still innocent people there,' Lawrence B. Wilkerson, a Republican who was chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, told The Associated Press. 'Some have been there six or seven years.'
The extent to which this outrage disturbs President Obama will be a strong indicator of his commitment to justice and human rights.

See also Rachel Maddow and Lawrence Wilkerson on Cheney's fear-mongering.


Mar 16, 2009

Cheney Can Go Now

Update II: GOP to Cheney: Please go away (Alex Koppelman)

Update: See also How dare you criticize this man? (Joan Walsh) and The outrageous offenses against Richard Cheney (Glenn Greenwald).

On matters of national security, Dick Cheney has all the credibility of a serial arsonist volunteering to be the office fire warden.

But Cheney now offers his McCarthyesque assessment of President Obama's performance on national security (after almost 60 days in office), Iraq and sundry other disasters of the Bush-Cheney administration. In sum, according to Cheney, they did well and Obama is doing badly.

'(Obama) is making some choices that, in my mind, will, in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another attack,' Mr. Cheney said of Mr. Obama in an interview on the CNN program 'State of the Union.' [Sulzberger, NYT]
Cheney and his fellow destroy-America-first crowd ought to slink away and spare us their continued lies and fear mongering.

As for Obama, there's much Bush-Cheney damage to repair, but how about retiring that ridiculous Homeland Security color-coded threat level system. Just ditch this relic of an administration that lived on instilling fear to wield its control over this country for eight years.

Returning to the 1950s-60s duck-and cover civil defence system makes about as much sense as retaining the color-coded threat level system, and the politics of fear should be acknowledged as such and then publicly discarded by Obama.

Jan 22, 2009

War on Terror Is Over If We Want It

The war on terror has always been a a propaganda device used by the mendacious Bush administration.

Matthew Yglesias asked in the American Prospect if Obama will jettison this exercise in lying writ large to the American people.

The notion of a 'war on terror' is a controversial one—British Foreign Secretary David Miliband recently critiqued it for giving the impression of a 'unified, transnational enemy.' Will Obama discard the phrase?

Jul 28, 2008

Joe Lieberman Looking out for Terrorists

Via Crooks and Liars, The Havana Note reports that "Joe Lieberman will seek a pardon for a convicted terrorist who led a bombing spree across Manhattan."

From The Havana Note:

Cozying up to Cuban-American extremists in South Florida has been a part of American political culture for decades. It is an unseemly ritual that has nevertheless persisted because of the dysfunctional peculiarities of our Electoral College that grants Florida 27 votes, exactly 10 percent of the electors needed to win the White House.

Jul 16, 2008

The Terrorist Next Door

Thank you Goldy, for The terrorist next door?.

The nation’s terrorist watch list has hit one million names, according to an ACLU tally based on the government’s own reported numbers. ... That’s one million names, but many times that the number of people this pointlessly excessive list routinely sweeps up in our nation’s Bushian paranoia. I happen to know one of the thousands of Robert Johnsons on the list, and he has indeed been taken aside by airport security for extra interrogation and inspection. (Though it could have just been his graying hippy ponytail that sparked their suspicion.)

Jan 5, 2008

Terrorism Act a Path to Destruction of First Amendment


Robert Weitzel's piece on the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 reveals the authoritarian instincts of the American political culture.

The act passed with only six dissenting votes, (AZ-6 Jeff Flake [R]; CA-46 Dana Rohrabacher [R]; HI-1 Neil Abercrombie [D]; IL-12 Jerry Costello [D]; OH-10 Dennis Kucinich [D], and TN-2 John Duncan [R]), in the House last fall.

The Act, if passed, might just pass First Amendment challenges in a Court system stacked with commissar-mined Bushies, though protected political speech is one of the last remaining realms in which America leads the world.

As pointed out by Weitzel, "the Act’s use of the term 'violent radicalization,' which it defines as 'the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence . . .'" could be used to outlaw any civil disobedience against Bush's authoritarian America.
Martin Luther King Jr. surly would have fit the bill of a terrorist facilitator (Hoover thought so), in the minds at Bush's Dept of Justice; one can see a King accused of "promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence".

One can only hope that the U.S. Senate prevents this obscene act was reaching the president's desk. For details on the act, read Weitzel's piece below.

But one must wonder why the hell Tammy Baldwin, John Conyers, Jan Schakowsky and others who know better voted for this anti-American outrage. They must have not read it.
----
“Political language has to consist largely of euphemisms . . . and sheer cloudy vagueness.”
- George Orwell -

by Robert Weitzel

H.R 1955: the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 recently passed by the House—a companion bill is in the Senate—is barely one sentence old before its Orwellian moment:

It begins, “AN ACT - To prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes.”
Those whose pulse did not quicken at “other purposes” have probably not read George Orwell’s essay, “Politics and the English Language,” or they voted for the other George both times.

Orwell’s jeremiad on the corruption of the English language and its corrosive effect on a democracy was written two years before his novel 1984 spelled out in chilling detail the danger of Newspeak, which renders citizens incapable of independent thought by depriving them of the words necessary to form ideas other than those promulgated by the state.

After its opening “tribute” to Orwell, H.R 1955 is strategically peppered with Newspeak regarding the establishment of a National Commission and university-based Centers of Excellence to “examine and report upon the fact and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States” and to make legislative recommendations for combating it.

The “sheer cloudy vagueness” of H.R 1955, as well as its terror factor, may account for its bipartisan 404-6 House vote but how, in an era informed by the Bush-Cheney administration’s egregious assault on the Bill of Rights, can the phrase “other purposes” fail to raise the “National Terror Alert” from its current threat level of “elevated” to “severe.”

Future “other purposes” will undoubtedly be justified by the Act’s use of the term “violent radicalization,” which it defines as “the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence . . .” or by the folksy, Lake Wobegonesque “homegrown terrorism,” defined as “the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born [or] raised . . . within the United States . . . to intimidate or coerce the United States, the civilian population . . . or any segment thereof . . . [italics added].”

In the service of some self-serving “other purposes,” will “extremist beliefs” become any belief the temporary occupants of the White House consider antithetical and threatening to their political agenda?

Will “ideologically based violence” or the use of “force” become little more than the mayhem resulting after a peaceful protest, daring to move beyond the barbed wire of the free speech zone, is attacked by a truncheon-wielding riot squad armed with tear gas, German Shepard dogs and water cannons?

Will the unarmed, constitutionally protected dissenters who are fending off blows or dog bites, or who are striking back in self-defense become “homegrown terrorists” and suffer draconian sentences for their attempt to “intimidate or coerce” the state with free thought and free speech?

A clue to future “other purposes” may lie in the Act’s parentage. The proud House “mother” of the Patriot Act’s evil twin is Rep. Jane Harmon (D-CA), chair of the Homeland Security Intelligence Subcommittee. Rep. Harmon has admitted to a long and productive relationship with the RAND Corporation, a California based think-tank with close ties to the military-industrial-intelligence complex. RAND’s 2005 study, “Trends in Terrorism,” contains a chapter titled, “Homegrown Terrorist Threats to the United States.” Is this Act a bastard child?

Keep in mind that the RAND Corporation was set up in 1946 by Army Air Force General Henry “Hap” Arnold as “Project RAND” sponsored by the Douglas Aircraft Company. Keep in mind also that Donald Rumsfeld was its chairman from 1981 to 1986 and Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Dick Cheney’s felonious former chief of staff, and Condoleezza Rice were trustees. Enough said!

RAND maintains that “homegrown terrorism” will not be the result of jihadist sleeper cells. Rather, it will result from anti-globalists and radical environmentalists who “challenge the intrinsic qualities of capitalism, charging that in the insatiable quest for growth and profit, the philosophy is serving to destroy the world’s ecology, indigenous cultures, and individual welfare.”

Further, RAND claims that anti-globalists and radical environmentalists “exist in much the same operational environment as al Qaida” and pose “a clear threat to private-sector corporate interests, especially large multinational business.” Therein lies the real “other purposes.”

Predictably then, H.R. 1955 is not about protecting homegrown Americans. That protection is only incidental to its “other purposes” of protecting homegrown corporate interest and its unconscionable manipulation of the American political process to fill its coffers. Any thought or speech or action— however protected it might be by the Bill of Rights—that threatens corporate hegemony and profit will no doubt suffer the “other purposes” clause of the Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act.

Anyone doubting the Orwellian nature of a “bastard child” that equates anti-globalists and environmentalists with al Qaida terrorists will do well to read Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language” and to acquaint themselves with the fate of Winston Smith in 1984.

Biography: Robert Weitzel is a freelance writer whose essays appear in The Capital Times in Madison, WI. He has been published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Skeptic Magazine, Freethought Today, and on popular liberal websites. He can be contacted at: robertweitzel@mac.com
###