There are No Weapons of Mass Destruction: Iraq's Old Story and Iran's New One

We already knew that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction in 2003. We are now getting more and more evidence that there simply is no weapons program in Iran either.

Let's start with Iraq. Most people think that the U.S. found out there were no WMD when it invaded Iraq. This is false. The truth appears in this excellent article on how economic sanctions wreaked havoc on Iraq (http://www.counterpunch.org/andrew07162010.html).

Here is what Andrew Cockburn wrote on what we knew:

"The economic strangulation of Iraq was justified on the basis of Saddam’s supposed possession of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Year after year, UN inspectors combed Iraq in search of evidence that these WMD existed. But after 1991, the first year of inspections, when the infrastructure of Iraq’s nuclear weapons programme was detected and destroyed, along with missiles and an extensive arsenal of chemical weapons, nothing more was ever found. Given Saddam’s record of denying the existence of his nuclear project (his chemical arsenal was well known; he had used it extensively in the Iran-Iraq war, with US approval) the inspectors had strong grounds for suspicion, at least until August 1995. That was when Hussein Kamel, Saddam’s son-in-law and the former overseer of his weapons programmes, suddenly defected to Jordan, where he was debriefed by the CIA, MI6 and Unscom. In those interviews he made it perfectly clear that the entire stock of WMD had been destroyed in 1991, a confession that his interlocutors, including the UN inspectors, took great pains to conceal from the outside world."

In other words, Saddam Hussein had no WMD since 1991, which we knew as of 1995. During that time, Clinton repeatedly bombed Iraq, and the U.N. put crippling sanctions on Iraq. When Clinton lied, people really did die.

Now, a new story has come out. An Iranian defector Shahram Amiri, apparently told the CIA that there is no Iranian nuclear weapons program. While Amiri was supposedly a low level informant who never had access to the same kind of information that Kamel did, this information squares with the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate and its recent reaffirmation that Iran hasn't been working on a nuclear weapons program since 2003 (if we assume it was working on one then). Here is the full article link to this story:  http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/07/19-5.

I have asked the question: "Why should we declare countries "threats" and declare war on them if they have WMD when the U.S. has the largest stockpile of such weapons in the world?" But it turns out, this notion of "secret weapons programs" in countries that do not currently have WMD is a lie the U.S. government knows its false. It's easy to sit here and say that a certain regime is dishonest and therefore how do we trust they are not building WMD? But the truth is that 1. U.N. inspection regimes work and 2. Never trust our government, which has the worst record when it comes to honesty.

The Health Care Fiasco

Here is what you'll rarely find, an accurate rundown of the healthcare bill. Here is a Fact Sheet created by Jane Hamsher of FDL Action: http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/19/fact-sheet-the-truth-about-the-health-care-bill/

To this I only have a few comments to add. They are claiming this bill covers 30 million Americans. What part of "mandate" do they want us not to understand? It'd be exactly like if the government forced us all to buy Toyota's due to their accelerator problems, and then told us that they'd "given" every American a Toyota.

Secondly, many liberals (though not all, such as the organization I sent) have fallen completely in line. Commenters on the Huffington Post are declaring victory (and they're usually to the left of the posters). The argument of supporters basically goes like this: "healthcare" has been passed. Obama has had a "victory." The Teabaggers are dead! Let's all celebrate! There is no argument being made in this, other than loyalty to the Democratic Party. No liberal would have supported the same bill if Bush had tried to pass it. And lest we pretend that no conservative would have tried to pass it, this bill is similar to the "universal coverage" Mitt Romney signed into law in Massachusetts.

The Earthquake in Haiti, A Man-Made Disaster with No End in Sight

This is the First Article of a three part series.

Many of us feel terribly sorry about what is happening in Haiti. Of course, we try to give aid in this situation, hoping to do our part to help Haitians survive.

But we should feel more than pity, and sorrow, and sadness. We should be furious.

The results of this earthquake are more of a man-made disaster than a natural disaster. It goes without saying that the failure of the U.S. government and NGO's to deliver aid is a man-made disaster.

But how can there be a lack of aid, with all the giving that has been going on?

Andy Gallagher of the BBC reports that aid groups complain that it is difficult to get aid where it is needed because of the inherent difficulty in organizing such aid, and the lack of infrastructure in Haiti. These alibis seem to work fairly well, until we realize that giving aid usually involves crises in places with weak infrastructure.

A more telling comment comes from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who, according to Andy Gallagher's BBC report said that the U.S. is not dropping aid from the air because it could lead to riots. Imagine that your community was in dire straits, and someone who had the capability of delivering aid rapidly did not do so because "you might riot if we did?" You might respond "How dare you suggest that we are not 'civilized' enough for you to give us the help we need!"

Nelson Valdez, writing for Counterpunch, describes more of this racist attitude. He states that clearly, aid to Haitians is not the first priority. He quotes a Scottish reporter as saying that "aid workers in Haiti today called for more security amid fears of attacks by increasing desperate earthquake survivors." Valdez also cites a report stating that "security squads" have moved aid providers to "secure locations."

There is just one problem with this concern for security. The rioting and looting that lies beyond these concerns isn't happening. The people aren't rioting, they are begging for help.

Jesse Hagopian, writing for the Socialist Worker, has his own observations regarding this crisis. When asked "What role has the U.N. been playing?" He replied "I really didn't see them at all, even though the hotel I was staying at became a center where hundreds of people came for relief." This is more significant than it appears, since the U.N. has a large presence there. In fact, they have been occupying the country since 2004.

Of course, the U.S. marines have also arrived. Why are they there if not to help? Reading between the lines, we can conclude that they are part of the plan for "security" in Haiti. The U.S. government fears unrest. (I will get into more about U.S. imperialism later, but the U.S. would not want a new regime implementing progressive policies due to this disaster).

In addition to "aid" involving a racist fear of Haitians instead of a rapid delivery of aid, we have the U.S. government putting on a show every bit as ridiculous as Bush's disappearance during Hurricane Katrina. Hagopian explains that the airport at Port-au-Prince was shut down for three hours, preventing aid from arriving during that time. Why? So that Hillary Clinton could arrive there to show support! In addition, former presidents Bush Jr. and Clinton have been asked by Obama to help support the relief effort. Of course, this is the same George Bush that led the disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina. In short, this isn't about helping Haiti, it's about politicians pretending to care.

I would say that the U.S. doesn't care about what is happening in Haiti, except that U.S. actions over the last century reveal that it cares a lot. However, the U.S. cares about its own imperialist interests, not about the people of Haiti.

A world without risk is a world that doesn't exist

The terrorist attack on Christmas got me thinking. When it happened, I thought that it might be a random person. Of course, there has been a lot more evidence since then, evidence that the government should have known something, considering that the intelligence stated that a person referred to as "the Nigerian" was going to be involved in an attack planned in Yemen. But I digress...

When I was thinking that it was some lone nut, I asked myself, what would we do if it was? Indeed, what if it wasn't on a plane? And what is the story when horrible incidents don't involve terrorism but still involve death, like the shooting up of a school? Or, as far as we know, the shooting in Fort Hood?

My point is this, we cannot create a world where there is no danger. Consider this simple fact, when the passengers got on the plane, their was a higher probability of them dying in a plane crash caused by a malfunction than a plane crash caused by a terrorist. And then, there was still an even greater chance of them dying in a car crash on the way to the airport.

Of course, our ideas about security did not start after 9/11. If a person who committed a crime is placed "out on the streets" and then commits another crime, the problem is that we let him out on the streets too soon.

In short, our society wants no risk, at least not from other people. Even if we really did weaken crime by dealing with the causes instead of the symptoms, even if we had the perfect society, does anyone really think that there wouldn't be one person who murders someone else in a world of over 6 billion people?

Not only are we foolish enough to believe that we would be more protected if only the government is tough enough, we also believe that our government can completely protect us (or wants to, but that's another post). It's nonsense.

I think its a psychological trick. We rightly choose to take risks in order to enjoy life to the fullest. However, to deal with the discomfort of doing so, we imagine that we live in a world without risk. The media, of course, scares us all the time, every time we hear a crime story, we're supposed to imagine that it could happen to us. Of course, it could, but that doesn't mean it will, or that its remotely likely.

With a terrorist attack on American soil, its even worse. We're supposed to imagine that not only could it happen to us, but that it did happen to us. It doesn't matter that it didn't happen to you or I. "Us" means any American. Of course, if you have the misfortune to be the victim of an American bombing instead, well, the media makes sure we didn't think that happened to anyone, let alone us.

I would argue that if America were to end imperialism, there would be little motivation for terrorists to attack America. I would also argue that "crime" in America is a result of an unjust society. However, I think some people hope that the government is this super protective being that can provide us with absolute security. Under capitalism, the government does not even serve the people it claims to protect. But even an ideal government can't play God, and protect everyone at all times. It's a good thing too, since who would ever want a government with that much power?

My Mother's Letter to Newsday on the Recent Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations

Before I post the letter, I would just like to make a few comments. First of all, I am convinced that these recommendations were intended to allow insurance companies to deny coverage for mammograms.

Secondly, it is under capitalism that women can be treated like statistics instead of people. In the eyes of the elite, we are all statistics, and our fate is decided based on whether or not we produce a profit for certain companies (in this case, the insurance companies).

Without further ado, here is my mom's letter:

Thirteen years ago I wrote to Newsday in response to the National Cancer Institute’s review of mammogram    guidelines which were initially eerily similar to the current U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations for breast cancer screening. These current recommendations are telling us that women in their 40s don’t require mammograms, nor should women of any age perform self exams or even get examined by a doctor because these methods are not foolproof, and not enough women will be saved.

I am that “1- in-1,900 woman” who was saved by getting a mammogram at 41 years old when I was diagnosed with a virulent, fast-growing cancer that would have killed me if I had even waited another year.

My kids were four and seven years old when I was diagnosed. They are now 19 and 22, one a college graduate, the other a college sophomore. I’ve lived a very full 15 years since my diagnosis, watching my kids turn into fine young men, enjoying the company of my husband of 28 years, pursuing my passions, volunteering for causes dear to my heart: - pet therapy, helping foster kids, and fighting breast cancer.

For many women like myself, there is often no way to know whether we are at high risk for breast cancer. Younger women are at a higher risk for fast-growing cancers that require early detection to survive. Early detection can also allow for the cancer treatment to be less invasive and less traumatic.

To say that self exams and possibly even a doctor’s exam of one’s breasts are worthless makes no sense. Do these exams work every time? No, but they’re non-invasive, easy, inexpensive (or free!) tools that find many cancers, - certainly not worthless when a woman’s life is at stake. This task force may think women will follow these recommendations like sheep, but we’ve become educated and savvy. The current breast cancer screening methods may not be foolproof, but we are not fools.

How many cancers found are required to be significant when one of them ends up being yours? I’m not just a statistic, nor are the scores of women who won’t be as lucky as me if these new guidelines are adopted.

Sometimes, Opposites Think Alike

In the U.S., liberalism is typically contrasted with conservatism. Conservatism is supposedly the ideology of anyone who sits on the right wing in the U.S. It is the religious right, the CEO's of major corporations, Rush Limbaugh, etc. It combines ideas about the government controlling of people's personal lives, with keeping the government out of people's lives, combined with pro-corporate policies. In other words, there is very little to hold it together as an ideology, it lacks the consistency of an ideology, because it is simply a proxy for ideas that the Republican Party meshes together and takes as their own.

Liberalism is in some ways even more contradictory outside of the marketplace, in that liberals want the government to stay out of our personal lives, and to have our personal lives controlled via law, ie. government.

However, I want to discuss something different all together, namely, the two views of the market and the government that dominate in this country. These are referred to as liberalism and libertarianism (although it really refers to right wing libertarianism, since the term really only refers to opposition to government).

While liberalism consists of the belief that government should intervene to protect us from the market, libertarianism is the belief that the government should stay out of the market, and our lives, because we need to be protected from the government. Liberals believe government is good, the market is evil, libertarians believe that the market is good, government is evil.

Both ideologies are correct about what is evil, and wrong about what is good. To repeat a quote I've used before from the communist manifesto: "The executive of the modern state is nothing but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.” In other words, the market controls the government, and they are both evil for the same reason, namely, they are tools of the capitalist class. (This is more of a left wing libertarian position, anti-government, and anti-market).

In this sense, "conservatism" begins to make a little more sense than Rush Limbaugh when we realize that one of the instincts within it is correct, namely the libertarian opposition to government. Likewise, liberalism makes sense in that it isn't supposed to be "big government" at the expense of the people, so much as it is supposed to be government protecting the people from "big business."

Of course, both are wrong, in that in both cases, asking one to take care of the other is like asking an arsonist to put out a fire. The government cannot save us from the people that it works for, anymore than the market can save us from the government that works for it.

Even worse, the political parties that claim to represent these ideologies fail to do so. The Democrats pretend to oppose big business, but they are just as pro big business as the Republicans. Likewise, the Republicans pretend to oppose big government, but they are just as pro big government as the Democrats. For example, its hard to be more pro big business than Obama's trillions of dollars in bailouts, just as it is hard to be more pro big government than Bush's Patriot Act. Of course, these are not just acts of the president, both parties supported these acts in Congress, making them truly bipartisan affairs.

People instinctively understand this. That is why, even when they are ideological opposites, they tend to find themselves voting for the "lesser of two evils" or not voting at all. We tend to underestimate the act of not bothering to vote. We assume people are lazy, yet we forget that the political elite as convinced us to frown upon people who don't vote. Let's not forget how "important" the last election was supposed to be, particularly if you were for Obama. If not voting was not considered to be taboo, we'd probably have less than 20% of people voting during a presidential election!

In conclusion, regarding the market and the government, Many Americans have been divided along two ideological lines. They feel vindicated, because half of what they think really is true. They vote for political parties that they know don't even support their ideology, but they consider them the "lesser of two evils." Some of us try to oppose this farce all together, but are few in number and fairly powerless because most who see the farce for what it is, give up, and believe that if change via elections is not possible, then no change is possible. This system is ideal for the elite, because under this system, nothing ever changes. Ultimately, it is time for us to realize that change is only possible when we unite to revolt against this oppressive capitalist system, instead of siding with one half of it over the other.

What does it really mean to be Antiwar?

Imagine there is a country out there thinking of war. They examine the U.S. They see the many problems the U.S. has. They count the number of prisoners we have, and conclude, that since we have the most of any other nation, we must be the most oppressive country in the world. Incidentally, they claim that they have the most freedom of any nation in the world, and they hope to bring their freedom over here. They invade the U.S., and they occupy our country indefinitely. Oh, and by the way, they've killed a million of our civilians, making 9/11 seem irrelevant in comparison.

What would we say in this scenario? Would we simply say, "thank you for bring us freedom?" Or would we say "get out now!" Would we be justified in fighting back? Or would our soldiers be "terrorists" for fighting against those who "bring freedom?" Would we believe that they are in fact bringing us freedom? Or that they have some other motive? Would we say "clean up the mess and then leave?"

Of course, the reverse of this scenario is exactly what the U.S. is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. And yet few people have truly been antiwar regarding both since Obama has taken office.

Iraq, of course, is supposed to be "Bush's war." At this point, most Americans are against it. Nevertheless, Obama has quietly continued the occupation of Iraq (since occupying a foreign nation is not news, even when U.S. troops die). Newsflash, we aren't getting out anytime soon, at least we aren't if there continues to be no antiwar movement.

Afghanistan is the one that Americans on both sides of the political spectrum have consistently failed to oppose. Sure, more and more Americans want the U.S. to withdraw because it is a "quagmire" that we can't "win." This position did not constitute an antiwar position during the Vietnam war, and it does not now. Rather, this position is essentially, "we've lost, lets cut our losses." If you are rooting for the U.S. to "win," that means that you think that there is something to win, and furthermore, that that could have been won through war. By definition, you are pro-war.

The truth is, the invasion of Afghanistan was just as unjust as the invasion of Iraq. Yes, terrorists that had bases in Afghanistan attacked the U.S. However, let's reverse the scenario again. Some Americans, with support from the U.S. government, attack Cuba. Cuba now has the right to take over our country, kill civilians, and occupy it indefinitely, while deciding our politics. Right? I don't think so.

That neither Iraq or Afghanistan has been brought democracy at the barrel of a gun and that just about everyone in both countries is suffering, and may even be worse off than they were before, just adds to the absurdity. But simply condemning the wars by describing all of the sordid details or even saying that these are occupations and not wars is wrong. Both of these positions imply that these wars could be just.

They cannot. War is wrong, period. Far from being a crazy position, this argument is simple. If all people are created equal, we cannot declare otherwise. If it is wrong for someone to kill U.S. civilians, and it clearly is, than it is equally wrong for the U.S. to kill foreign civilians. If it is wrong for someone to occupy our country in the name of freedom, than it is wrong for the U.S. to occupy a country.

And, groups like Codepink, who support an "exit strategy," are pro-war and pro-occupation. To argue that the U.S. should get out after "fixing the mess," cannot possibly be an antiwar position. Obama has the same position, Bush had the same position. It is still the same position even if their timetables for withdrawal are quite different.

The only position that is antiwar and anti-occupation is "Get Out Now!" That includes everywhere, not just Iraq and Afghanistan, but a large number of other countries, ie. South Korea.