A New World Order ?

By most measures, the global war on terror (GWOT) has been a failure. Osama bin Laden remains at large, thumbing his nose at Bush in video-taped comments. No Guantanamo-incarcerated "illegal combatant" has been brought to trial. The only terrorist attack prevented -- for real, not in dark hints from the CIA -- has been when a flight attendant subdued shoe bomber Richard Reid.

The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were an act of terrorism perpetrated by a group of fanatical individuals, not a nation state. Yet the Bush administration chose to respond as though the US had been an attacked by all of the Islamic nations of the Middle East; declaring this and that nation a part of an "axis of evil", casting the conflict in simplistic black and white terms and declaring "You're either with us or with the terrorists". Consider then that Bush's Global War on Terror has already gone on longer than WWII but shows no sign of winding down. It is being used by Washington to justify security laws (with the consequent diminution of civil rights) and enormous and disproportionate Pentagon spending programs ($450 billion for 2006 and counting).

Consider that the brutal bombings in Spain and Britain triggered a localized police response, not a global anti-terrorist crusade. Perhaps not coincidentally, arrests were made in both cases. Despite claims to the contrary, this administration cannot demonstrate that the threat of al-Qaida has been reduced to any degree. Nor can the Bush administration make any substantive claim that, as a result of its 'war on terror' policies, Americans are any safer than before 9/11. Many believe that the policies and actions of the US government have, in fact, not made Americans safer but have only made the prospects of another attack in the U.S more likely and confirmed in the minds of the radical Islamic fundamentalists its beliefs and fears about American intentions.

By all appearances, the way it was framed by Washington, the GWOT clearly wasn't meant to be won -- merely fought. Terrorism was never defined, the enemy was never identified (beyond whatever state or entity the American government deemed "evil") and no parameters for victory were ever set. From the start, the GWOT has been an Orwellian war without end -- the kind governments wage on their own citizens to tighten the screws, eliminate opposition or keep people from asking uncomfortable questions ("You're either with us or with the terrorists"). Is this, then, what the internationalists have in mind when they speak about creating a "New World Order"? Do they really believe that by engaging in an endless war they can "advance the cause of peace"? The administration brooks no debate or discussion concerning its policies or strategy vis a vis the GWOT. It simply casts its questionable policies in such lofty and noble-sounding rhetoric as "the call of history" to bring "an end to tyranny in the world" and marches on, pursuing its geo-political objectives.

By definition, then, the only way the Islamic fundamentalists can oppose American power and policies is terrorism (there is no reason to believe they will not continue to do so). They have no other means to resist the invasion and imposition of this New World Order on their country. But Iraqi insurgents can't even get to U.S. government officials or civilians and have been forced to seek ever-softer targets. They have been blowing up their own population, trying to thwart the U.S.-led invasion by plunging their own country into chaos.

This new, horrendous twist in terrorist tactics -- which the Bush administration has characteristically missed -- can be effective only if the United States remains a democracy, and retains an open society and free press. In the context of Bush's Quixotic and misguided attempt to "advance freedom and democracy", Americans need to ask themselves whether their own democracy is best served by a government seemingly intent on establishing some kind of New World Order, imposing its will and its values on the nations of the Middle East; or whether they will remain silent and unquestioning, hoping and believing that somehow their leaders "know better than I". Let them consider whether this New World Order and the imposition of Western values and ideals on other nations of the world is compatible with democracy at home.

Homeland Security? Hmmm...

Again and again we hear our President proclaim his dedication and commitment to keeping America safe; that our safety and security is his first and highest priority. But now our fearless Commander-In-Chief endorses and supports selling the management of several major seaports of the United States to a state owned corporation of the United Arab Emirates. Let's break that down and take a closer look.

The President's Homeland Security Advisor, a member of the Executive cabinet, assures us that the transaction has been thoroughly vetted and poses no risk to the security of the United States. The nature of this vetting process is, of course, "top secret" and so we are not allowed to know and understand that process. We are being asked to "trust us". This from a Homeland Security Advisor who did such a bang up job responding to the Katrina and Rita hurricane tragedies. "Trust us"... This from a Commander-In-Chief who got everything wrong in his assessment and execution of this horrorific war in Iraq.

We are being asked to believe that the President has the security of the United States foremost on his mind. But then we learn that earlier this month, the president of the American Association of Port Authorities complained that the $708 million allotted for maritime security over the past four years amounted to only one-fifth of what the port authorities had identified as needed to properly secure the ports; money allotted by... you guessed it... the Bush administration.

Once again, we see those two great hallmarks of American foreign policy - hypocracy and economic expediency - in full play. The hypocracy of an Executive that endorses doing business with a nation (U.A.E.) that is in no way democratic is obvious. Consider the blood and treasure expended by this same Executive in pursuit of bringing "freedom and democracy" to the Middle East. But in reality, it's business as usual regardless of the nature of government involved.

The UAE is a small _ population just over 4 million _ oil-rich Persian Gulf state with whom, according to the State Department, the United States enjoys friendly relations and close commercial and military ties. It is not insignificant that this same United Arab Emirates is believed to have supported and facilitated the activities of the individuals who committed the terrorist acts of 9/11.


Ports deal questioned in the U.S.
By Brian Knowlton International Herald Tribune


-- Sept. 11 plotters funneled money through Dubai, and two came from the United Arab Emirates, but Chertoff insisted that that "doesn't mean that every company there is automatically guilty or automatically has to be excluded from owning something here." --


The Financial Times
November 30, 2001


-- Preparations in the US for the September 11 attacks began with his ( M. Atta ) arrival on a tourist visa at Newark airport, New Jersey, in June 2000...

-- He opened an account at SunTrust Bank in southern Florida, which received Dollars 109,440 in four wire transfers from the United Arab Emirates.

-- ... Atta and fellow plotter al-Shehhi - a chubby, bespectacled 23-year-old from the UAE who played the affable glad-hander to Atta's stern and intense organisation man - wrote cheques totalling Dollars 38,000 to Huffman Aviation for pilot lessons.


MSNBC
December 11, 2001


-- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
VIRGINIA, ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
-v-
ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI,
a/k/a "Shaqil"
a/k/a "abu Khalid al sahrawi," Defendant.

-- On or about July 19, 2000, $9,985 was wired from UAE into a Florida SunTrust bank account in the names of Mohammed Atta (#11) and Marwan al-Shehhi (#175).

-- On or about August 30, 2000, $19,985 was wired from UAE into a Florida SunTrust bank account in the names of Mohammed Atta (#11) and Marwan al-Shehhi (#175).


Despite the fact that Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, this same administration had no trouble at all finding Iraq 'guilty' and promptly invaded that country. Having trouble trusting the judgement of this administration? Doubts, it seems to me, are quite reasonable and well-founded.

Now, our president wants us to believe that the despotic rulers of this Arab nation are "good partners" in the war on terror. "Trust me", implores a President who has shown himself to be consistantly without honor or integrity, shown himself to be incapable of honesty and candor in serving the people of the United States. How are we supposed to understand and trust a President that invades, destroys and occupies a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, a country that was not in possession of any weapons of mass destruction and posed no threat to the United States but who will gladly do business with a nation like the U.A.E. ?

Can you say 'cognitive dissonance'? Can you say "93 billion barrels of oil in proven reserves"? I know you can.

From day one, this administration has adopted tactics, strategies and policies proposed and endorsed by the signatories to the Project For A New American Century (PNAC). A look at this US ports deal through the lens of the PNAC Statement Of Principles is informative.

-- The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.

"...we cannot find security by abandoning our commitments..." G. Bush January 2006

And yet, in the interests of internationalist corporate profits, the Bush administration is apparently willing to turn a blind eye to the stated U.A.E. policies toward Israel and abandon its "commitment to moral principle" -

From The Jerusalem Post:

Exclusive: Dubai ports firm enforces Israel boycott
By MICHAEL FREUND
Feb. 28, 2006 2:55

The parent company of a Dubai-based firm at the center of a political storm in the US over the purchase of American ports participates in the Arab boycott against Israel, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

"Yes, of course the boycott is still in place and is still enforced," Muhammad Rashid a-Din, a staff member of the Dubai Customs Department's Office for the Boycott of Israel, told the Post in a telephone interview.

US law bars firms from complying with such requests or cooperating with attempts by Arab governments to boycott Israel.


Can you say hypocracy? We have an administration that is consistantly hypocritical in its definition and application of foreign policy. I doubt very much the Israelies are much impressed with America's "commitment" to Israel.

And, as we have learned from the NSA Domestic Surveillance practices of this President, violating the laws of the land is not an object or issue.

Why this transaction? Well, that brings us to the second hallmark of American foreign policy - economic expediency. Once again we see that there is no higher god in the internationalist /corporate pantheon than profit. Promoting the corporate/military economic infrastructure of the United States always warrants primary consideration. The safety and security of the United States be damned. These corporate criminals and the politicians that pave the way for their thievery and treason have no loyalty except to profit and power. They care not one whit for the social, environmental or economic well-being of the people of the United States.

Am I wrong? America jobs continue to be 'outsourced'. The American standard of living continues to fall. You can be sure that good union jobs at these various ports will be lost in this 'port management' transaction. This is an administration that rejects the Kyoto Treaty and continues to turn a willful blind eye to the mounting scientific evidence of global warming and other environmental dangers. But that is just a continuation of standard Bush economic policy. Corporate/Internationalist profit before and above all else - that is the guiding principle of this administration and the lock-step lackeys in the Congress that support this Presisdent at every turn. You can soon look for legislation endorsing and approving the sale of the rope that will be used by this greedy and heartless bunch to hang us.

Feeling safer now? Still believe this President and the republicans are best able to ensure your safety and security? Fine... the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny send
friendly greetings to you.

Meddling As Foreign Policy Pt. 3 of 3

The time has surely come for the people of the United States wake themselves, shake loose the grip of shock, fear and anger, reject the simplistic black and white characterizations of people and events and join together in a dialogue that will determine what kind of country America is to become. The time has come to take courage, face conditions as they are and leave behind the notion that "the politicians and leaders know better than I; let them decide". Isn't it just this kind of deference to politicians on the part of the American people that helped to create the situation in which the US now finds itself? The American people must consider and decide for themselves what kind of people they are and what kind of government they want to represent them. Do they really desire a government that marches all over the world, imposing its will and its values, making war wherever and whenever it chooses, upon any country or people it deems "evil"? Do Americans want to support a government that seeks only to advance the interests of the 'internationalists' and the military/corporate infrastructure that dictates the policies of the United States? Or are the Americans prepared to take their country back from the fear-mongers and the war-mongers, from the profit-at-any-cost international corporations? Are the Americans a people that wish to live in harmony with all people of the world? Are the Americans a people who desire social and economic justice for others as much as they desire it for themselves? Or have they really come to believe that others must suffer and die so that America might prosper and feel "safe"? Do they really believe that the rest of the world must behave and believe such and such and so and so in order that America might feel good about itself and safe in its little part of the world?

With the elections of 2006 pending, this is perhaps a good time for the American people to reflect on these kinds of questions and decide -

Are they ready to acknowledge and accept responsibility for their part in creating so many of the dangerous conditions in which they and the people of the world find themselves? Are they prepared to act responsibly to find peaceful and just solutions to these conflicts?

Are they ready to reject the belligerent (" bring 'em on ") and destructive meddling of the Executive; an Executive whose first and only solution is a bigger and more destructive military? Are Americans willing to reject these 'military first' policies that have brought all the peoples of the world to this dangerous and fearful state of affairs?

Are they ready to acknowledge and refute the lies and deceptions this administration perpetrates in order to advance its thinly disguised internationalist/corporate policies? Are they willing to reject this 'military might makes right' approach in dealing with other peoples and other cultures of the world; an approach that only serves to enrich the already wealthy and perpetuate the cycle of hatred and violence?

Are they ready to hold their leaders and elected representatives to account when these representatives choose to serve the interests of the corporate/military economic infrastructure and fail to serve the true and long-term interests of the people?

Are they ready to reassert control over their government? To wrest power out of the hands of the corporate/military economic infrastructure and the multitude of wealthy special interests and the lobbyists who represent these special interests?

Are the Americans prepared to reject the policies of an administration which seeks to expand its military advance upon other nations of the world; policies and advances made with the promise of making America "safe from terrorism"; made in the name of "advancing freedom and democracy"? Americans, and indeed the world, has heard this kind of cynical rhetoric all too often. Surely the Americans are mature enough to see through it and reject it.

Are Americans ready to stand courageously and resist this administration's efforts to subvert American freedoms, liberties and values in its drive to acquire ever more power and authority while making false and illusory promises of security and safety.

Are they ready to act to reaffirm the principles found in the Constitution Of The United States and in the Bill Of Rights? Ready to reaffirm the spirit in which the founders of the United States acted to create a nation "of the people, by the people and for the people" ?

Are Americans prepared to make change and act, to become part of the solution? Clearly what is needed now is a willingness on the part of Americans to think anew about their place in the world. What is needed now are statesmen and representatives who can think independantly and creatively; men and women with the courage to speak plainly and honestly and to represent the best interests of the people of the United States. Without significant change and meaningful action by the people of the United States and the individuals elected to represent them, I fear the flame of this great democratic experiment known as America will dim and be extinguished once and for all time.

Meddling As Foreign Policy Pt. 2 of 3

Americans live in a glass house and it is filthy. Consider the $450 billion spent annually at the Pentagon (with more on the way). For what? To bring about the "end of tyranny in our world"? Or to ensure that America is the last tyranny standing; ready, willing and able to impose its will and values on the other peoples and nations of the world? $450 billion (and counting) is being spent producing the kind of military needed to fight Rumsfeld's 'long war'. Bear in mind, this is money spent quite apart from the money allocated to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is seemingly no end to the voracious appetite of the Pentagon as it pursues new and ever more costly and deadly weapons systems. Sophisticated long-range weapons systems to do what? to fight guys with car bombs and RPGs? $450 billion in pursuit of this so-called "historic long-term goal"? Why is it that American foreign policy is always presented as some righteous cause to defeat some kind of 'ism' deemed a threat and conducted through intimidation, coercion and the use of military intervention? It's no small coincidence that the formulation of such policies and the pursuit of such 'lofty' and 'noble' goals will enrich an already rich military/corporate economic structure. The current administration has shown that it is clearly interested first and foremost in serving these interests as it continues to pander to fanatical group of moral 'terrorists' known as the religious right. The corrupt cowards that slither through the halls of the Congress, if not actively supporting and promoting this murderous Executive agenda are standing by; silent and without courage.

For many years now, the American people have been asked to believe this axiom: "What is good for business is good for America". And, as a result, over the years the various corporations of the United States have been put in the "driver's seat" when determining and deciding American domestic and foreign policy. However, in this age of globalization, this axiom no longer serves the American people (if it ever did). The power of corporate America in shaping American foreign policy overwhelms any influence the American people have on their government in shaping policy. The various corporations, ever more international in every aspect, and the politicians who represent them are selling out the people of the United States. Jobs continue to be lost and the American standard of living continues to decline; the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and the middle class, long the bedrock of American democracy, is fast disappearing . These corporations are loyal only to money, profit and power. The well- being (socially, economically and environmentally) of the people of the United States is of no interest or importance to corporate America what so ever.

It would appear that little or no thought or consideration is being given to the foreign and domestic policies that have helped manifest this era of global terrorism. That Americans are reaping what they have sown is simply lost on the people elected to represent and lead them. Shall the people and leaders of the U.S. give no thought to their responsibility in creating the conflict in which they find themselves? Should they not reconsider how they might do things differently? Should they not re-evaluate and reject policies designed to serve corporate interests rather than the true interests of the American people? As D. Cheney put it recently "the American way of life is not negotiable". Perhaps what he is really saying is that the wealth, privilage and comfort of a very few is "not negotiable". And there is apparently no limit to the amount of American blood and treasure they are willing to expend defending their wealth, privilage and comfort.

Indeed, the hubris, the arrogance, the greed and the crimes this band of murderers, liars and thieves are willing to commit apparently knows no bounds. Will the people of America continue to allow these neocon warmongers now in power to continue to expend American blood and American treasure in pursuit of policies that serve only corporations and a narrow, greedy and corrupt segment of America? These "war on terror" policies cannot and will not succeed; these are policies that can only result in more death, destruction, ever more suffering by more and more people and an ever growing number of people that wish America harm. Everyone of the criminals serving in the Bush administration ought to be arrested and prosecuted for the crimes they are committing.

Meddling As Foreign Policy Pt. 1 of 3

Meddling... forever and always interfering in the affairs of other nations. Since the end of WWII, meddling has been a hallmark of US foreign policy. This meddling is co-dependent to a ridiculous and dangerous degree. Apparently America cannot "feel ok" unless and until the other nations of the world act in accordance with American interests and wishes. And it is apparent that there is no limit to the lengths American administrations are willing to go, no limit to the military power they are willing to bring to bear, no limit to the lies and deceptions they are willing to perpetrate in pursuit of an all-controlling agenda; an agenda so characterized by war, destruction and failure. Ironically, it is precisely this meddling by the United States in the affairs of other nations (particularly in the Middle East) that so alienates the peoples and nations of the world and so enrages the Islamic jihadists; an irony seemingly lost on those now in power. Now Bush and his group of neocon cronies, in response to terrorist actions against the United States, have chosen to expand the 'meddling as foreign policy'. By invading and occupying Iraq and rattling sabres at Iran and Syria, the United States is only entrenching itself deeper in a position that only invites continued resistance and acts of terrorism.

You see, the meddling never ends...


Washington Post
Thursday, February 16, 2006

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asked Congress yesterday to provide $75 million in emergency funding to step up pressure on the Iranian government, including expanding radio and television broadcasts into Iran and promoting internal opposition to the rule of religious leaders.

Home>news VOA .com
Updated Feb.16,2006 22:12 KST

Rice Says U.S. Will Confront Aggressive Iranian Policies

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told senators Wednesday the United States will actively confront what she said are the aggressive policies of the Iranian government. At the same time, she called for sharply increased U.S. spending to try to promote political freedom in that country.

Given the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, one might reasonably ask which government practises 'aggressive policies'...


Fri Feb 17, 1:04 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -

Washington wants to curb Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's anti-American influence by lobbying allies to try to expose any anti-democratic policies, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Thursday. In what she termed an "inoculation" strategy, Rice said she had sought support from Europe and other Latin American nations to highlight U.S. charges that the populist Chavez abuses his power to target political opponents and business leaders.


Meddling is meddling... it cannot be justified with some 'God On Our Side' slogan or with "advancing the cause freedom" jingoism or justified with preposterous claims of " bringing an end to tyranny in our world". Enough with the fear mongering, propaganda and lies that are being used by this administration to perpetuate its hold on power and to advance its agenda. Meddling in the affairs of other countries cannot be justified by claiming that it is necessary to make America safe or by claiming that this meddling is righteous and stems from some set of higher principles and values (other countries, other leaders and madmen, all throughout history have made the same claim in pursuit of policies enforced by the might of their military power). To 'advance the cause of peace', as this administration claims to be doing, by making war is just too Orwellian to be taken seriously by any rational, thinking person. I do not recall any country of this world, least of all the Arab nations, appealing to the US to come "liberate us" and provide freedom and democracy. Rather, Americans are being been led to believe that this is somehow America's moral obligation. It is not. This policy of "spreading freedom and democracy" appears more and more as simply a rhetorical ruse used to sell what is essentially a policy designed to serve the corporate/military economic infrastructure of the United States.

Americans are being asked to believe that only by supporting the policies put forward by the current adminstration can they be truly safe. Yet one need not think very long or hard before realizing that this "safety" is illusory; that a guarantee of safety cannot be made. One can surmise that a continuation of the policies of greed, self-interest and imposition will only intensify the desires of those who wish harm to America and just about ensure that acts of terrorism will escalate in frequency and intensity. Perhaps if the United States were to advance policies based on principles of social and economic justice, the cause of terrorism might be so reduced (or eliminated) as to effectively bring an end to the threat of terrorist violence on American soil and American interests abroad. Unfortunately, corporate America (Exxon, Halliburton, Lockheed-Martin, Raytheon etc etc) and the politicians who represent corporate America show little interest in such 'lofty' and 'naive' principles.

Let us ask ourselves this question - How would Americans respond were the shoe on the other foot? How would they respond were some goverment to attempt to impose its will and values on America. How would the government of the US respond were another nation to foment rebellion by "promoting internal opposition" to the rule of its elected leadership?. Can you imagine another nation establishing a military presence in the United States? It is preposterous, of course. Americans would not accept that for an instant. Why should others be made to accept that which Americans would not accept for themselves? And why should other peoples and nations of the world be made to suffer American policies of arrogance, greed and fear? In fact, Americans have no moral imperative or authority to act this way; to impose its will, values and way of life on others and certainly no moral high ground from which make any claims of superiority what so ever.

Foreign Policy Reconstructed

Consider how charitably disposed the US government was towards the Muslim men fighting in Afghanistan against the Soviets in the 1980's. I don't think many Americans knew or cared one way or another about this band of 'freedom fighters' or their struggle to liberate that country. Never-the-less, it is well known that the United States was allied at that time with these 'freedom fighters'; men who subsequently transformed themselves into what has become known as al-Quida. But as events unfolded over the course of the 90's... the first WTC bombing, the bombing of two US embassies in Africa and the bombing of the USS Cole, the Americans became quite aware of and progressively less charitably disposed towards al-Quida.

Until finally, as a result of the WTC and Pentagon events of 2001, the President, with the approval of the US Congress, was authorized to use 'all necessary and appropriate force' to destroy the al-Quida leaders and their recruits in Afghanistan; the individuals believed to be responsible for those vicious acts of terrorism.

Consider then how charitably disposed the Arab/Muslim world is now disposed towards the United States. Subsequent to the Gulf War of 1991, the Arab/Muslim world has witnessed and been the victim of a series of assaults and affronts to its domain and its population - the continued US presence in Saudia Arabia, the deadly sanctions led and enforced by the US with the approval of the UN against Iraq (and the disgraceful Food For Oil program), the bombing by the US of facilities in the Sudan, the continued support of Israel and its deadly policies vis a vis the Palestinians and various other populations of the Middle East. And now, with the invasion, destruction and continued occupation of Iraq, the peoples of the Middle East have most certainly become more mistrustful of and hostile to the West in general and the United States in particular than at any other time in recent memory.

How then can the West and the government of the US in particular imagine that relations might improve between East and West were the United States to widen the war in the Middle East; to launch an attack on Syria or Iran? Does the United States really believe that acts of terrorism against the West would decrease and that America and Americans will be safer as a result of such military actions? Is this administration really so blind and foolhardy as to believe such actions to be in the interests of the people of the United States? Or are such arrogant, reckless actions more in the interests of those who benefit and profit from this war?

Are the American people willing to stand by and allow it's government to continue to pursue policies of arrogance and destruction; more of the very kinds of policies that have brought us to this dark and dangerous pass.

Statesmanhip, leadership, independent thinking, wisdom, humility on the part of the American people and their elected representatives is what is required now. A new way of thinking and acting is the obvious alternative to continued policies of greed, self-interest and imposition. A new way of imagining our place in the world is what is urgently needed. Change will come when policies no longer serve only the interests of the wealthy and powerful. Change will come when US foreign policies serve the interests of the people of the United States and are founded on principles of social and economic justice for all the people of the world.

Foreign Policy Deconstructed Pt.3 of 3

Contrary to what this administration would prefer us to do and contrary to what would be most easy to do, we would be well served by paying attention to "the man behind the curtain". The President's lofty rhetoric and the noble goals aside, you can be sure that there is more at work here than meets the eye. The policies of the President, as well as the legislation written and enacted by Congress are designed, written and enacted with the full knowledge that concerned interests will benefit. When you consider that the president has written a budget of some $2.77 trillion (yes, I said trillion) you can infer that there are any number of eager beneficiaries to this kind of largess. Not the least among the interests being served is the military/indistrial economic infrastructure of the United States. Here are a few of the 'facts on the ground' about just a few of the corporate giants who have been, and will continue to benefit from the grand and noble visions of our Commander-In-Chief.


As reported recently by MarketWatch:

"Defense stocks traded higher Monday after the White House requested almost $440 billion for the Pentagon's budget next year, a 7% increase that makes it the centerpiece of the $2.77 trillion request sent to Congress."

"The key for defense contractors is the as-expected $157 billion requested for equipment as well as research and development, according to Banc of America Securities analysts."

"The defense budget continues to grow but at this point, most of the growth is completely dependent on the war-related funding not yet included in the numbers..."

"Shares of Lockheed Martin (LMT: Lockheed Martin Corporation (Holding Company)... "

"Dow component Boeing Co. BA:Boeing Co..."

"Most of the Pentagon's largest contractors all advanced, including Raytheon Co."

When considering possible motivations for the policies being shaped by this administration, there are other, no less interesting and informative reports and documents readily available.

As reported at Chron.com in 2006:

"After three years of losing money, Halliburton reported a hefty profit for 2005 and announced that all six of its divisions posted record results."

"'The year 2005 was the best in our 86-year history,' Dave Lesar, Halliburton's chairman, said Thursday."

"The company posted a year-end profit of $2.4 billion, or $4.54 per share, on revenue of $21 billion."

"For the fourth quarter, Halliburton booked a profit of $1.1 billion on revenue of $5.8 billion."

As reported at Rawstory in 2005:

“'Halliburton has already raked in more than $10 billion from the Bush-Cheney Administration for work in Iraq..."

"Cheney continues to hold 433,333 Halliburton stock options. The company has been criticized by auditors for its handling of a no-bid contact in Iraq. Auditors found the firm marked up meal prices for troops and inflated gas prices in a deal with a Kuwaiti supplier. The company built the American prison at Guantanamo Bay."

"Cheney told Meet the Press in 2003 that he didn't have any financial ties to the firm."

“'Since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's vice president, I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest,' the Vice President said. 'I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years.'”

An analysis released by a Democratic senator found that Vice President Dick Cheney's Halliburton stock options have risen 3,281 percent in the last year. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) asserts that Cheney's options -- worth $241,498 a year ago -- are now valued at more than $8 million.

"Cheney continues to receive a deferred salary from the company. According to financial disclosure forms, he was paid $205,298 in 2001; $162,392 in 2002; $178,437 in 2003; and $194,852 in 2004." (Sen. Frank Lautenberg D-NJ)

Can you say 'liar, liar.. pants on fire'? I knew you could.


As reported at Breitbart.com, January 27, 2006:

"Chevron Corp.'s fourth-quarter profit climbed 20 percent to $4.14 billion, a company record that continued the most prosperous stretch in the oil company's 126-year history as it capitalizes on high fuel prices that are squeezing consumers and ruffling politicians."

"Its profit of $14.1 billion for the full year was also a company record."

As reported at Breitbart.com, January 30, 2006 -

"Exxon Mobil Corp. posted record profits for any U.S. company on Monday _ $10.71 billion for the fourth quarter and $36.13 billion for the year_ as the world's biggest publicly traded oil company benefited from high oil and gas prices and demand for refined products."

Raytheon, Bechtel, Lockheed -Martin.... the list of corporate beneficiaries is as long as your arm, maybe longer than that.

We would be wise to be mindful that the plans being made by this administration, that the policies it wishes to pursue, all of this is being done ' in our name ' and obstensibly for our benefit. The tremendous sums of money being spent to prosecute a seemingly endless war are being spent in our name. The 'facts on the ground' would seem to indicate that this administration is planning for and is engaged in policies that clearly exceed the requirements necessary to deal with a rogue band of international terrorists.

The 'noble and lofty goals' of the president aside, this current administration is clearly serving other interests and has much more in mind than fighting a 'war on terror'.

The question then is... Are you and I going to support the president; his goals and policies as well as the goals and policies of the interests he is serving?

No one has troubled themselves to ask those of us who will be required to give and sacrifice so much in service to the president's ambitions. Nobody has asked me. Has anyone asked you? And where are our elected representatives in all of this? Silent and absent...

Well, if they won't ask us then we had better ask ourselves and we had better make our answer known. What say you?

Foreign Policy Deconstructed Pt. 2 of 3

In his State Of The Union Address of January 2006, the president made some bold, yet vague, statements concerning America's policies in prosecuting the 'war on terror'.

" Abroad, our nation is committed to a historic long-term goal. We seek the end of tyranny in our world."

" Once again, we accept the call of history to deliver the oppressed and move this world toward peace."

A study of available information about projections made by the Department Of Defense, about the plans of the Department Of Defense as it considers and determines what kind of military is required to meet the contingencies of the projections made begins to reveal the means of this administration as it seeks to commit our nation to a "historic long-term goal of ending tyranny"; as it seeks to "deliver the oppressed and move the world toward peace."

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has spoken plainly about what this administration terms "the long war" and he has made it clear how they intend to prepare for and prosecute this "long war." The contradiction between 'moving the world toward peace' and the stated plans of the the president and Department Of Defense is not lost on even the most casual reader.

As reported in San Fransciso Chronicle February 3, 2006, the speech, which aides said was titled "The Long War," came on the eve of the Pentagon's release of its Quadrennial Defense Review, which sets out plans for how the U.S. military will address major security challenges 20 years into the future. From the same report:

The Quadrennial Defense Review, mandated every four years by Congress, opens with the declaration -

"The United States is a nation engaged in what will be a long war."

In a presentation of the Quadrennial Defense Review by Secretary Rumsfeld, intentions and goals of the Department of Defense (apart from fighting the 'war on terror') are clear and explicit. Again, from the same report:

"Finally, it ( the Quadrennial Review) sets out plans for deterring the rising military heft of major powers such as China."

A reading of the various reports on the budget for the year 2007, proposed by the president and submitted to the congress February 5th of this year, makes clear the kind of funding being allocated to the Department Of Defense so that it might meet the goals articulated in the Quadrennial Defense Review.

As reported in Washington Post, February 6, 2006:

"The budget, for the fiscal year that begins in October, is a tall order for a Congress facing a difficult election year. Defense spending would rise 6.9 percent, from $411 billion to $439 billion. Homeland security spending would rise by 3.3 percent."

"But all other operations of government would fall by $2.2 billion, or 0.5 percent."


There is a wealth of information available concerning the Defense Department. This website, the Defense Strategy Review Page, among many, is recommended. As is stated on their page, they offer "online free and open access to a broad spectrum of analyses, background studies, official documents, and commentaries essential to understanding the formulation of U.S. national security strategy and military policies."

When we consider that the "war on terror" is fundamentally a war on individuals rather than a war of nations (the war in Iraq not withstanding), the military planning and preparations being made by this administration seem to me curiously out of proportion as a response to the events of 9/11 and the threat posed by Al Quida to our nation. The budget allocated to the Defense Department to prosecute the 'war on terror', in my opinion, belies the intentions and plans of this administration to engage in a much wider and more extensive war than the current 'war on terror'. I do not think the president has been candid and forthcoming on what his true intentions are. But then, he has seldom if ever been candid about anything his administration has done or intends to do.

Foreign Policy Deconstructed Pt. 1 of 3

On January 31st of 2006 The President of the United States gave the annual State Of The Union speech before the Congress.

'We Strive to Be a Compassionate, Decent, Hopeful Society'

Let's take a closer look at that...

Compassionate? Ask the victims of hurricane Katrina how compassionate they found this administration to be.

Decent? Ask the prisoners held at Guantanamo, Cuba and Abu Graib in Iraq how decent they find the United States of America to be.

Hopeful? I suspect most folks are simply hopeful the conflict will come to an end; the conflict overseas and the conflict we experience here at home so that they might once again enjoy their lives out from under the shadow of fear perpetuated by this administration.

In the speech, there were a number of statements, assessments and assertions made that bear close examination and evaluation; among them the following -

Foreign Policy -

Paragraph 4 - "Abroad, our nation is committed to a historic long-term goal. We seek the end of tyranny in our world.. "

Paragraph 9 - "America rejects the false comfort of isolationism.."

"Once again, we accept the call of history to deliver the oppressed and move this world toward peace."

Bold and noble-sounding rhetoric such as this is sure to raise patriotic emotions. And I think that, in part, is what the purpose of such rhetoric is. I think that, by raising these emotions, hope is held that the people of our country will be much less inclined to think carefully on the implications of what is being said. I think hope is held that we citizens will succumb to a belief that "well, they must know better than I".

But revealed in this text is a fair indication of what kind of foreign policies we can expect this administration to pursue and prosecute. Examination of various statements made by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Rice and Vice President Cheney reveals a more complete picture and factual assesment of what these people have in mind as they shape the foreign policies of our country.

I intend to provide just such information; information that facilitates a more complete understanding of just what it is this administration has in mind; the elements and characteristics of the policies they wish us to support.

In the interim I have been asking these questions -

Just what are the implications of making this commitment to a "historic long-term goal"? A clear and complete explanation of the costs and possible consequenses of such a commitment has not yet been forthcoming.

No one in a position of authority has asked me if I am willing to make such a commitment. Has anyone asked you? It appears this "commitment" is, in fact, a fait accompli. It's a 'done deal' and done without any debate or discussion whatsoever. Where are our elected representatives in all this? I expect that in a functioning democracy, they would be making themselves available to their constituencies; leading the debate and discussion so that they might best and most accurately represent the 'will of the people'. Thus far, they are silent and absent.

Finally, I have been asking myself this question - What is this "call of history". What the heck does that mean? I haven't heard any "call of history". Have YOU heard this "call of history"? It may be this "call of history" is something only the president hears. We have reason to be concerned.

Welcome to OUR COUNTRY

Since the day of the State Of The Union address of 2006, I have been considering and researching on the many issues raised and assertions made by the President in that speech. My instinct and intuition tells me not to accept at face value the various declarations and statements he made in that speech. I will be posting research results as well as my own thoughts and observations vis a vis the content of the speech. Your comments and observations are solicited and very welcome.

A copy of the speech

It is always helpful to have the facts at hand. There are many reference tools available on the internet, Google being just one example. They are invaluable and the primary source of the information I collect and post.

Good luck to all,

JACK