Bush, Maliki Break Iraqi Law to Renew UN Mandate for Occupation

Go to Original

    Bush, Maliki Break Iraqi Law to Renew UN Mandate for Occupation
    By Raed Jarrar and Joshua Holland
    AlterNet

    Thursday 20 December 2007

    A majority of Iraqi lawmakers say renewal requests not ratified by the parliament are illegal.

    On Tuesday, the Bush administration and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki pushed a resolution through the U.N. Security Council extending the mandate that provides legal cover for foreign troops to operate in Iraq for another year.

    The move violated both the Iraqi constitution and a law passed earlier this year by the Iraqi parliament - the only body directly elected by all those purple-finger-waving Iraqis in 2005 - and it defied the will of around 80 percent of the Iraqi population.

    Earlier in the week, a group representing a majority of lawmakers in Iraq's parliament - a group made up of Sunni, Shiite and secular leaders - sent a letter to the Security Council, a rough translation of which reads: "We reject in the strongest possible terms the unconditional renewal of the mandate and ask for clear mechanisms to obligate all foreign troops to completely withdrawal from Iraq according to an announced timetable."

    We don't know if it was even read by members of the Security Council, but we do know that it, like previous communications from the Iraqi legislature, was completely ignored.

    James Paul, director of the Global Policy Forum, which follows the United Nations' intrigues, said that while "there's concern in many delegations at the United Nations about what is going on," Security Council delegates "are under instructions from their governments to lay low and pass the U.S. resolution." According to Paul, the move "shows the despotic power of the U.S. government to force everyone to knuckle under, no matter how much the law is violated."

    It was an egregious assault on Iraq's nascent democracy, as well as its supposed "sovereignty," and can only encourage more bloodshed. Yet the commercial media has so far ignored the story entirely, reporting only that "Iraq" had requested that the mandate be renewed.

    The real picture is dramatically different. Just as some congressional Democrats in Washington have tried desperately to limit Bush's ability to maintain troops in Iraq forever - inserting various conditions into the endless series of supplemental spending bills that have financed the occupation - and been thwarted by the administration, so too has a majority of Iraq's parliament come out against renewing the mandate without attaching conditions to it, including a requirement that the United States set a timetable for withdrawal.

    That's a process story, unsexy by definition, but that doesn't change its importance. This move speaks to the degree to which occupation and democracy are mutually exclusive, and to how Bush and Maliki must run roughshod over the Iraqi legislature (not to mention the U.S. Congress), sacrificing opportunities for political reconciliation along the way, in order to maintain an almost universally despised American military presence in the country.

    The UN Mandate

    The U.N. mandate provides vital political cover for the occupation. The Bush administration has ignored or violated much of the international law governing the conduct of an occupying power. As Orwellian as it is, the United States, having bombed the hell out of Iraq, invaded it with a huge mechanized army and installed a government that exists wholly within the confines of its sheltered "international zone" - the "Green Zone" - and now maintains that its troops are in the country by the invitation of that government. The United Nations' mandate is a key part of maintaining that fiction.

    Last year, at Maliki's request, the Security Council renewed the U.N. mandate suddenly, surprising many of the Iraqi lawmakers we reached in Baghdad at the time. Dr. Alaa Makki, a Sunni MP representing the Accord Front, asked that we send him a copy of the U.N. resolution and Al-Maliki's letter since he had no clue about the machinations that were going on between the PM and the Security Council. Hasan al-Shammari, a Shia parliamentarian with the Al-Fadhila party, told us by phone: "We had a closed session two days ago, and we were supposed to vote on the mandate in 10 days. I can not believe the mandate was just approved without our knowledge or input." Dr. Hajim al-Hassani, a secular MP and the former speaker of the parliament, also didn't know that the mandate had been renewed until receiving our call. "We were supposed to have a meeting with the Prime Minister and other top officials in the parliament during the next couple of weeks to decide what to do with the mandate," he said.

    A majority of Iraq's legislators viewed the renewal as unconstitutional. While article 80, section 6, of the young constitution gives the cabinet the right to "negotiate" and "sign" international agreements and treaties, article 61, section 4, reads: "A law shall regulate the ratification of international treaties and agreements by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Council of Representatives." Like the U.S. system, the executive branch can only negotiate international treaties; the legislature has to ratify them.

    At the time, Maliki argued that while he respected the powers given to the parliament, the U.N. mandate didn't count as either a treaty or an agreement, and therefore didn't require a nod from the legislative branch.

    Hoping to avoid a repeat of the PM's maneuvers this year, the Iraqi legislature has tried to put its foot down and assert its rights under the country's constitution. First, at the end of April, 144 members of the parliament - a majority - sent a nonbinding letter to the members of the United Nations Security Council and to the United Nations secretary general condemning last year's "unconstitutional" renewal and calling for a timetable for foreign troops to withdraw from Iraq.

    The Parliament then went a step further at the end of May, when 140 of its members co-sponsored a resolution requiring Maliki to get parliamentary approval before renewing the mandate this year.

    Here the story gets a bit legalistic, but bear with us. The resolution was submitted on May 27. During the session, Al-Mashhadani, the head of the Iraqi parliament, refused to allow a vote on the measure, sending it instead to the parliament's legal committee for review (also known as "sending it to die in committee"). On June 5, however, Al-Mashhadani bowed to pressure and allowed a vote on the resolution, which passed by an 85-59 margin. Maliki's cabinet then had a choice of vetoing the law or sending the resolution to the federal court for review.

    According to Article 73, section 3 of the constitution, if neither of those actions are taken, then a law passed by the parliament is "considered ratified after 15 days from the date of receipt." The legislation was neither vetoed nor sent to the judiciary for review, so, according to the Constitution, it was duly passed and became binding under Iraqi law.

    A few days later, Hoshyar Zebari, the minister of foreign affairs, was called to a hearing at which a member of the parliament's legal committee posed a question. "A few days ago," said Omar Khalaf Jawad, an MP from the secular National Iraqi Dialogue Front, "the Iraqi parliament passed a resolution that obligates the cabinet to receive approval from the parliament before renewing the occupation forces' mission. What steps have your ministry, or the Iraqi cabinet as a whole, taken to inform international entities and countries with forces in Iraq about this resolution, so that we will be sure the resolution will be respected and implemented?" Zebari assured the parliament that its legislation would be disseminated to the appropriate parties and respected by the prime minister and his cabinet.

    But, four months after that hearing, in an off-the-record conference call with most of the Security Council's 15 delegates and a number of Sunni, Shiite and secular Iraqi MPs, two unexpected discoveries came to light.

    First, the delegates were informed that a report submitted by the secretary-general contained some crucial factual errors. The SG's report said that the parliament had "passed a nonbinding resolution on 5 June obligating the cabinet to request parliament's approval on future extensions of the mandate governing the multinational force in Iraq and to include a timetable for the departure of the force from Iraq." On the call, the Iraqi lawmakers explained to the delegates that the resolution was a binding law and that it did not contain a request to include a timetable. One of the MPs attending the meeting from Baghdad clarified: "All that the resolution requests is that the Iraqi parliament be allowed to practice its constitutional rights."

    The second and more shocking discovery of the meeting was that the letter sent in April by the 144 members of Iraq's parliament had never been delivered to the Security Council delegations. Some of the Iraqi MPs confirmed that they had handed the letter to Ashraf Jehangir Qazi, the United Nation's special representative for Iraq (Qazi later insisted that he had indeed delivered the letter to the Security Council members and to the secretary-general).

    The next day, the Iraqi MPs took it upon themselves to notify the Security Council delegates that any request to renew the mandate that is "issued by the Iraqi cabinet without the Iraqi parliament's approval is unconstitutional." It added: "The Iraqi parliament, as the elected representatives of the Iraqi people, has the exclusive right to approve and ratify international treaties and agreements including those signed with the United Nations Security Council."

    At the end of November, Foreign Affairs Minister Zebari was again called to testify before the Iraqi parliament. He promised, unequivocally, that any request to extend the mandate "will not be presented to the U.N. Security Council prior to its submission to the Iraqi parliament for deliberation."

    But that wasn't to be. In the letter sent this week, Iraqi lawmakers' demand was unambiguous: "We ask the Security Council not to accept any letter requesting renewal that is not ratified by the parliament. Such a letter would be deemed illegal and unconstitutional according to the laws of Iraq," it read.

    No debate was held in the Iraqi legislature, and on Tuesday the Security Council voted unanimously to renew the mandate.

    Iraqi Lawmakers Not the Only Ones Getting the Runaround

    Our sources in the United Nations told us to expect a vote towards the end of the week, and we were caught by surprise when it was held Tuesday.

    The timing appears to have been a response to senior members of Congress picking up on the Iraqi legislature's efforts to put conditions on the renewal. In a letter sent to Condoleezza Rice on Dec. 5, Rep. William Delahunt, D-Mass., chairman of a House subcommittee on foreign affairs, noted the Iraqi parliament's legislation and warned that ignoring its prerogatives might lead to a broader perception that the occupation is "illegal, illegitimate and evidence of a desire for the long-term basing of our military officials in Iraq."

    On Wednesday, Delahunt held hearings on the renewal (at which one of this article's authors, Raed Jarrar, testified). We can't say for sure if the attempt to get these issues into the record on Capitol Hill had to do with the vote being moved up to Tuesday, but the fact that the mandate was renewed, suddenly, just one day before Congressional hearings were held suggests that there was an effort to create "facts on the ground" that would effectively sideline legislators' interest in the matter.

    What this story reveals, again, is that U.S. "interests" - that is, the interests of the U.S. foreign policy elite - which include establishing a permanent foothold in the Middle East and exerting influence over the political and economic course Iraq takes in the future, are paramount, and that any talk of democratizing missions or "liberating Iraqis" has never been more than political theater.

    The renewal is the latest in a string of instances in which the Bush administration and its allies in Iraq's executive branch have shut down a nonviolent, political avenue for Iraqi citizens to resist the presence of foreign troops in their country. By denying them those avenues, Bush and Maliki have effectively done what they accuse advocates of withdrawal of doing: "emboldening" violent insurgents and getting more innocent Iraqis and more U.S. troops killed.

    One can only wonder, now that the United States has "liberated" Iraq from Saddam Hussein, just who will liberate Iraq from the United States?

    -----------

    Raed Jarrar is Iraq consultant to the American Friends Service Committee. He blogs at Raed in the Middle. Joshua Holland is an AlterNet editor and staff writer.

Labels:
--

Subscribe to emails from :
- Better World News: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/bwn_at7l.us
- Learning News - children learning, how mind works: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/learn_at7l.us
- Health News - better ways of healthy living: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/health_at7l.us
- Good Morning World - Robert & Barbara Muller's daily idea-dream for a better world: http://www.goodmorningworld.org/emaillist/#subscribe
or send a request a subscription to any of the three lists here.

View these blogs:
- Better World News
- Learning News
- Health News
- Good Morning World

IRV - Instant Runoff Voting - Is A Hit Over 70% Really Like It

Here's one thing AMERICAN VOTERS really like, once they've tried it: instant runoff voting.

From San Francisco to Henderson, NC, exit polls in each of the five jurisdictions that have adopted IRV find support in the 71-89% range.

http://www.instantrunoff.com/exitpoll.php

Exit Poll Surveys Show Voters
Like Instant Runoff Voting

Exit polls have been done in every American city where voters that used instant runoff voting (IRV) for the first time in 2004-2007. These elections were:

• San Francisco, California First used in November 2004 in elections for city council
• Burlington, Vermont: First used in March 2006 in elections for mayor
• Takoma Park, Maryland: First used in January 2007 in electing a city council vacancy
  
• Cary, North Carolina: First used in October 2007 in elections for city council and mayor
• Hendersonville, North Carolina: First used in November 2007 in elections for city council

The following chart provides a summary of exit surveys showing that voters both understand and like instant runoff voting by overwhelming numbers.

Jurisdiction	Understand IRV well or fairly well	Prefer IRV to city’s prior system2	Knew how to rank candidates before coming to vote
San Francisco1	87%	82%	69%
Burlington	89%3	78%	90%
Takoma Park	88%	89%4	84%
Cary	95%	72%	76%
Hendersonville	86%	71%	65%

1. Subsequent surveys in San Francisco in 2005 and 2006 showed continued high levels of support
2. Some voters had no opinion. Percentages of those expressing support for IRV over old system were: San Francisco (61%), Burlington (63%), Takoma Park (89%), Cary (68%) and Hendersonville (67%).
3. Measures voters who did not find the ballot confusing
4. 76% said would like IRV for all local and state elections; an additional 13% support it for local elections

---

Exit poll survey sources:

San Francisco, CA
http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/election/Elections_Pages/SFSU-PRI_RCV_final_report_June_30.pdf

Burlington VT
http://www.betterballotcampaign.org/sites/fairvotemn.org/files/burlington_exit_poll_results.pdf
 
Takoma Park, MD
http://www.fairvote.org/reports/researchreports/takoma_2007exit_summary.pdf

Cary and Hendersonville, NC
http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/cobb/IRV%20Results_Tables.pdf

Labels:
--

Subscribe to emails from :
- Better World News: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/bwn_at7l.us
- Learning News - children learning, how mind works: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/learn_at7l.us
- Health News - better ways of healthy living: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/health_at7l.us
- Good Morning World - Robert & Barbara Muller's daily idea-dream for a better world: http://www.goodmorningworld.org/emaillist/#subscribe
or send a request a subscription to any of the three lists here.

View these blogs:
- Better World News
- Learning News
- Health News
- Good Morning World

The Tookie Protocol For Peace - A Local Street Peace Initiative

The Tookie Protocol For Peace
A Local Street Peace Initiative
Stanley "Tookie" Williams

http://www.tookie.com/

Table of Contents
Print Peace Protocol

Introduction    
Understanding Retaliation
Conclusion
   
Signature Agreements
    Perpetual Peace Accord for Opposing Gangs   

Point I: Proclamation
Point II: Violations of Proclamation Clause
Point III: Peacekeepers and Monitoring Committee
Point IV: Peacekeepers' Oath
Point V: Buffer Zones
Point VI: Gang Membership Renunciation
   
Putting The Theory of Peace Into Practice
    Establishing Peace
    Maintaining Peace
    Peace Disarmament
    Social Agenda For Peacekeepers   

Education and Career Trade Programs
Political Awareness
Employment
Socioeconomic Commission
Peace March
Community Cleanup
   
Signature Agreement
    Community Peace Accord    
Postscript
    A Final Note From Tookie 




Introduction

To address the social state of emergency regarding urban violence, I have written this protocol for street peace, a comprehensive strategy for peace and reconstruction within the community. My provisional design can be modified to meet the needs of each particular situation in any community – no matter where the location in the United States or elsewhere in the world.

The United States government's approach to urban violence is often to launch one of its intermittent "wars" on crime and then trumpet success by pointing to wholesale incarcerations, yet fail to deter or rehabilitate the criminal mentality. But, for a generation of disgruntled youth and adults, living the thug life and going to prison have morphed into an underdog aspiration.

But placing blame is irrelevant. We must concentrate on a workable solution.

The approach to resolving an epidemic begins with understanding the origins of it, the causes and effects. To broach this issue I draw on my life and gang experience as the co-founder of the infamous Crips. I grew up in South Central Los Angeles amidst poverty, street gangs, pimps, prostitutes, police tyranny, illegal drugs, criminality, and other social injustices. Here was a social vacuum without paternal guidance, without career-oriented programs, and without a nurturing village or community to support the male rite of passage toward becoming a responsible adult. Violence, gangs and street level socioeconomic crimes (selling drugs, robbery, prostitution and theft) were – and continue to be – direct results of living in these conditions.

This social vacuum has spawned urban nihilists like the Crips, the Bloods, and many other street gangs. Gangs serve as a weapon of rebellion against parental authority, culture, religion, community, law enforcement, the world, God, and other gangs. The muscular irrationality of a gang's instinct to survive is used to justify any wrongful act, even at the expense of a family member, stranger, friend or foe.

The motto "through whatever method demanded" serves as a destructive rationale for street gangs to fend for themselves in society, without regard for anyone else. Each faction operates as an independent, lawless body that has no difficulty recruiting among the disenfranchised.

The absence of basic access to affordable housing, health care, quality education, secure employment and other necessities produces social instability. Any efforts to establish a peace policy will be doomed unless there is tangible social progress. Peace cannot be sustained without it! Poverty, racism and hopelessness foster an environment that supports the growth of toxic conditions.

Understanding Retaliation
From an illusory elitism of gang membership, a pattern of retaliation has emerged that perpetuates the pattern of murder-for-murder. In this scenario there are no winners. And the losers are too often buried in graveyards, maimed by gunfire, or incarcerated for their crimes. Like a pendulum, retaliation swings back and forth with its inevitable, brutal payback.

Trying to stop belligerent gangs from retaliating against each other is difficult. Retaliation brings a sense of machismo and an earned street "rep" (reputation). Society sees only a cycle of senseless murders, an unending tragedy. It would amaze both gang members and others in society to hear that conflicts between Crips and Bloods on death row – where I live – are rare. These sworn enemies engage in non-hostile dialogues, banter, share food and books, study, and exercise together on the same prison yards without controversy.

If notorious rivals who have been exterminating one another for more than three decades can establish a truce in prison, then a cease-fire is surely possible in society. Throughout California prisons, Crips and Bloods coexist for the purpose of survival. That simple philosophy can be transmitted to rival gangs in society. Instead of our killing each other, that energy can be harnessed to oppose poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, discrimination, and other social and judiciary injustices.

There are many reasons why warring factions should avoid this cycle of violence and retaliation, of lextalionis (eye for an eye): innocents are injured or killed, and the psychic and social scars on adults and children are handed down to next generations.

Conclusion
There is no quick-fix remedy for the gang epidemic.

Here on death row I have discussed a street gang truce with individuals from different age groups, geographical locales, gangs, and mentalities. I discovered that my ideological and philosophical outlook on peace was in step with perspectives of the newer and the older generation. I also realized it is illogical to create a peace not based on an individual and collective improvement of the lives of community members. Failure to establish a truce that includes a social agenda will cause any negotiation for peace to relapse into war.

I am convinced that peace is possible, despite the many lives that have been lost from years of youth gang warfare. This document is designed to assist those whose aspirations are to create a cease-fire, end gang violence and restore social order.

Although I have heard pessimistic individuals quote the English translation of the Latin phrase si vis pace, para bellum – if you desire peace, prepare for war – I strongly disagree.

Real peace will conquer war.

   
Signature Agreements
    Perpetual Peace Accord for Opposing Gangs

Acknowledged here and now on this month ___________, day __________, year ___________ ,
is a perpetual Peace Treaty between the warring parties: ___________________________ and ___________________________________.

This word-of-honor agreement binds the aforementioned rival factions to put aside their differences: ideological, political, religious, philosophical, racial, economical, geographical, criminal, material, personal or collective retaliation, or any social reliance on violence or murder. This document is an oath of responsibility for the parties involved to co-exist in peace and reconciliation for the security of our communities, their residents and offspring.

Signatory:__________________________________________________________

Signatory:__________________________________________________________

Date:_______________________________________________________________

Observing Witness:__________________________________________________

  

Point I: Proclamation

A-1: WE THE INVOLVED PARTIES WILL immediately cease fire and end any verbal, written, or physical violence against one another.

A-2: WE THE INVOLVED PARTIES WILL cease and desist the perpetuation of drive-by shootings, walk-up shootings, set-up shootings, ambushes, murder, drug deals, robbery, vandalism, kidnapping, rape, extortion, female and child abuse, illegal profiteering, or any kind of violence or criminality.

A-3: WE THE INVOLVED PARTIES WILL use every nonviolent measure to resolve all past, present, or future conflicts between us.

A-4: WE THE INVOLVED PARTIES WILL learn to respect one another and co-exist in peace within the community or elsewhere.

A-5: WE THE INVOLVED PARTIES WILL help to restore order and to rebuild the community.

A-6: WE THE INVOLVED PARTIES WILL not disrespect, instigate, or taunt each other or family members, relatives, wives, girlfriends, boyfriends, and acquaintances of the opposite parties.

A-7: WE THE INVOLVED PARTIES WILL not encroach upon each other’s community or neighborhood without prior notice to avoid suspicion or conflict.

A-8: WE THE INVOLVED PARTIES WILL help individually and collectively to keep the community safe from any improprieties.

A-9: WE THE INVOLVED PARTIES WILL not use the Peace Accord as a camouflage to commit mayhem against each other.

A-10: WE THE INVOLVED PARTIES WILL neither seek out nor plot with acquaintances or outsiders (defined as parties not obligated to this Proclamation) to carry out vendettas against each other.

A-11: WE THE INVOLVED PARTIES WILL not allow mistreatment or harm to befall any individuals appointed as Peacekeepers or others involved in the peace process.

A-12: WE THE INVOLVED PARTIES WILL put forth effort to become educated, computer-literate, and to learn a trade that will enable us to contribute to the reconstruction of our community.

A-13: WE THE INVOLVED PARTIES WILL eliminate any self-destructive behavior and personal vices – illicit drug usage, drug dealing, abuse of alcohol, inhalants, etc. – that will intoxicate our minds, impair our judgment and jeopardize the peace negotiations.

A-14: WE THE INVOLVED PARTIES WILL work side by side to do whatever is ethical to uphold the Perpetual Peace Accord and Proclamation, and we vow to live in harmony.

A-15: WE THE INVOLVED PARTIES recognize both the Perpetual Peace Accord and Proclamation as being fair and attainable. We agree to its entire content.

Signatory: ____________________________________________________________

Date: ________________________________________________________________

Observing Witness: ____________________________________________________

Point II: Violations of Proclamation Clause

This written clause is designed to maintain fairness in the determination of a possible violation of Point I: Proclamation, and to determine what, if any, will be the punitive measures. Violations committed by parties from either side will be adjudicated (via monetary fines, community labor, etc.) only by selected nonpartisan Peacekeepers' Committee members, to avoid possible hostile reactions by a violator from either party. Violations will be recognized as followed:

1.      To violate the cease-fire in any form;
2.     To violate any of the provisions in the Proclamation, including Point I: A-1 through A-15;
3.     To assist another party member to violate the Proclamation;
4.     To alter or rewrite the agreed-upon Proclamation to favor one party’s interest over the other party;
5.     To obstruct any of the appointed Peacekeepers from performing their duties
to maintain peace.

Signatory:______________________________________________________________

Date:___________________________________________________________________

Observing Witness:______________________________________________________

Point III: Peacekeepers and Monitoring Committee

B-1: Mediators, who could be members of local faith-based groups or other community-based organizations, initiate an outreach process to begin establishment of a Peacekeepers' Committee. In the beginning they play a crucial role in identifying the founding members of the Peacekeepers' Committee. Once this core group of founders is established, their outreach abilities are used to further expand the Peacekeepers' Committee, and they become members of that Committee.

B-2: The Peacekeepers' Committee members will consist of several – preferably former – local gang leaders or influential gang members; church leaders or influential members of the church congregation; local political representatives; grassroots community leaders; concerned parents; and other reliable and interested people within the community.

B-3: Peacekeepers will assemble daily or less often – depending upon the severity of the situation – until there is peace and community stability. Meetings can be held in a specific home, basement, garage, church, gymnasium, or in any enclosed facility. To provide safety for all the people involved in the peace negotiations, implement "pat searches" and/or metal detectors.

B-4: Selection of Peacekeepers' Committee members can be held annually or biannually.

B-5: All Peacekeepers will wear a specific-colored armband and insignia of peace to identify them. Any vehicle driven by a Peacekeeper will have a visibly attached white flag prior to venturing into any recognized area of either party participating in the transition to peace.

B-6: All decisions related to peace strategies and/or violations of peace among either party must be voted on by the Peacekeepers’ Committee before any such measures are enacted.

B-7: Each Peacekeeper is required to allocate his or her time to monitor specific communities and war zones. Moreover, he or she is expected to keep in touch with members from either party.

B-8: Any Peacekeepers' Committee member can be voted off the Committee if he or she is neglectful of duties or guilty of any wrongdoing – be it criminal or otherwise.

B-9: To prevent Peacekeepers from being involved in law enforcement matters, they must leave the solving of serious crimes, including murder, up to the authorities.

B-10: The Peacekeepers’ obligation is to implement and maintain peace and NOT to play the role of a police officer, a member of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency or any other law enforcement agency.

B-11: The Peacekeepers’ Committee is expected to create Buffer Zones (see Point V: Buffer Zones) within the community to meet the needs of either party. These Buffer Zones are necessary for the provisions of peace meetings, socializing, sharing information and providing a sanctuary.

B-12: All Peacekeepers must recite and sign a written oath regarding their responsibility to establish peace.

B-13: No Peacekeeper will act as a vigilante or enforcer through means of violence, nor will any Peacekeeper suggest or rely upon representatives of either party to act as vigilantes or enforcers.

Signatory:__________________________________________________________________

Date:_______________________________________________________________________

Observing Witness:__________________________________________________________

Point IV: Peacekeepers' Oath

I, _________________________________________ , do solemnly swear to uphold all the obligations of being a Peacekeepers' Committee member. Throughout the course of my appointed duties, I promise to be truthful and fair with either party. As a Peacekeeper my responsibility is to establish and maintain peace within the community. I vow to adhere to everything required of me within the Peacekeepers' Committee, Point III: B-1 through B-12, and the Peacekeepers’ Oath.

Signatory:_____________________________________________________________

Date:__________________________________________________________________

Observing Witness:_____________________________________________________

Point V: Buffer Zones

Both parties agree to designate neutral areas called Buffer Zones that are monitored by the Peacekeepers' Committee. These Buffer Zones will be set up to provide either party with a safe haven for peace talks, intermingling, relevant information sharing, meetings, etc. Such Buffer Zones can be established in a church, office, home, recreation center, building, or any kind of structure or territory, including a block or entire community. All members from either party agree never to violate the sanctity of the Buffer Zones, which are created to assist in peaceful negotiations.

Signatory:____________________________________________________________

Date:________________________________________________________________

Observing Witness:____________________________________________________

Point VI: Gang Membership Renunciation

Our long-term objective is the eventual dismantling of all disruptive parties (gangs, sets, groups, organizations, empires, etc.) that are prone to create havoc within the community. There will be party members from either side interested in changing his or her lifestyle. Point VI is written to protect any person who decides, or is encouraged, to give up his or her membership from any disruptive group.

1. All parties agree to allow any member who chooses to disassociate himself or herself from membership or association with any disruptive group representing either party to do so without the threat or enactment of ridicule, violence or retaliation.

2. Former members of a disruptive group representing either party are allowed to continue helping to establish peace without fear of repercussion.

3. Counseling and reorientation will be offered to any individual who decides to quit membership in a disruptive group representing either party.

4. For whatever reason, if any ex-member of a disruptive group rejoins his or her group, he or she will be excluded from the ongoing peace initiative.

Signatory:____________________________________________________________

Date:_________________________________________________________________

Observing Witness:____________________________________________________

Putting The Theory of Peace Into Practice
    Establishing Peace

The process for creating peace among hostile factions requires a neutral mediator or mediators. These mediators could come from faith-based groups or from community leadership organizations. The following is a process mediators should use to initiate a peace process:
1.     Have as many supporters as possibile on board prior to contacting either of the warring parties.
2.     Schedule a meeting separately and together with the local churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, community-based organizations, violence prevention programs, schools, businesses and local politicians to discuss their participation in the grassroots struggle for peace. Present a proposed peace document to each of these entities that illustrates the critical role of each of these groups to the community peace process.
3.    
If a mediator is not familiar with either of the warring parties, then that mediator should seek assistance from a reliable source who is acquainted with both sides and is capable of setting up separate meetings with each the most influential representatives of the opposing parties to recruit their participation in the development of the community’s peace process.
4.     Prior to the meeting, the mediator should learn as much as possible about the individuals the mediator is scheduled to meet.
5.    
Whenever the mediator (or mediators) determines that positive gains have been made during the dialogue with both sides, then the leaders of the opposing parties should be invited to attend a joint meeting in a neutral setting.
6.     During those joint meetings, encourage both parties to express themselves while the mediator (or mediators) observes and listens carefully. Since both sides are protagonists in the peace process, make sure to embody their most reasonable suggestions in tandem with your ideas about peace.
7.     Present both parties with a comprehensive peace strategy that is viable and attainable.
8.     Seek assistance in the peace process from the parents, family members, relatives and other associates of the leaders of the opposing parties. With both parties aware that people they care about will also be present at each peace meeting, rally, march and other social functions, it could dissuade potential hostile actions.
9.     To effectively address urban warfare the peace plan should address situations within a community, block by block, and expand as the project prevails.
10.     Draw from influential sources such as Original Gangsters who are incarcerated, from either party. Redemption, integrity and inspiration can be found among the most wretched.
11.     Do a background check on members of the Peacekeepers’ Committee to prevent possible infiltration and sabotage to your process by agent provocateurs. (There will be attempts by internal and external sources to disrupt the peace process. A viable peace policy supported by a staunch community can overcome its detractors' obstacles.)
12.     Initiate study groups to familiarize both parties with the origins of their ancestors and culture. Help them to develop pride in themselves and in their heritage. Teach them how to renounce their self-hate that produces violence, and show them how to cleanse themselves with dignity, honesty, justice and righteousness.

With peace as the objective, fear or flight is not an option. When you reduce the human factor to its bare essentials, we all want to live. Everyone's life is on the line. It will require instinct, intellect, sponsors, and absolute courage to bring together a viable peace agreement. With the majority of the community on board, peace can prevail.




    Maintaining Peace
To establish peace is one reality; to preserve peace will require consistent discipline, upkeep, interaction, and monitoring. Below are a few suggestions:
1.     In addition to the Peacekeepers, select a Community Watch Group organized with video cameras to monitor activity in the community. This is a precautionary – and interim – method to let everyone know that they are likely to be observed.
2.     Both the Peacekeepers and the Community Watch must work in shifts, around the clock, to monitor behavior and maintain peace. Their availability is critical to uphold order.
3.     Communal communication is necessary to supervise the war zone areas. Strategic points can be established throughout a neighborhood provided with computers, cell phones, walkie-talkies, etc., to monitor social activities. Preferably during the day, at-home mothers and elderly folks are candidates for Community Watch Groups. Whenever there appears to be improper activity, they should contact the Peacekeepers to address the situation. The most serious incidents (shootings and murders) must be left up to law enforcement agencies. Peacekeepers and Community Watch groups are not police officers.
4.     All Peacekeepers and Community Watch Groups should interact with all people in the community. Throughout the neighborhood, go door to door to discuss the peace policy or to distribute peace flyers. If there are people who refuse to discuss peace with you, leave a flyer in their mailbox or underneath the windshield wiper of their car. Let no community resident be ignorant of your peace initiative.
5.     Follow through on every policy that will create peace.
6.     Maintain contact with all parties under the peace accord. Keep them abreast of the progress being made, and/or any concerns and suggestions concerning the truce.
7.     Remind each individual participating in the peace process that they will be held accountable for his or her inappropriate behavior. Established and agreeable guidelines for punitive damages will be enforced by the Peacekeepers. Damages can range from monetary fines, community work, or other requirements of the peace agreement.
8.     Maintain a written report on the progress of the peace negotiations. Always acknowledge all individuals involved in the peace process.
9.     To preserve a truce, children must be educated on the premise of peace. The knowledge of peace combined with their direct participation will help create a generation of peace idealists.

Peace Disarmament
To disarm is the ultimate gesture of peace and a true moment of reckoning. Disarmament is not a coward’s way out, but rather a wise person’s way in for peace.

It is a myth that manhood and womanhood can be defined through the barrel of a gun. But realistically, the majority of people who do possess weapons will not surrender them under any circumstances. Moreover, if a self-hate mentality is maintained among the residents of a community, violence will continue, with or without the presence of guns.

For people to disarm themselves, then, they must first disarm their minds with education and enlightenment in support of an ultimate peace. Dare I entreat of every man, woman and child to lower the barrels of their weapons in honor of peace?


    Social Agenda For Peacekeepers   
It is unrealistic to attempt to establish a peace policy without including a social agenda. History has shown that communities and nations have either prospered or perished depending upon the viability of their social agenda – which is an orderly system that promotes prosperity for all its residents.

Throughout history, we see that the absence of peace and a workable social contract can give rise to nihilistic settings. Here in America, the subculture of gangsterism and criminality continues to devastate communities with its lawless agenda. This social agenda, in the paragraphs below, has been designed to help reintegrate the so-called gangbangers, criminals, ex-cons, and other incorrigibles into society.

Education and Career Trade Programs
This process is geared to provide each individual with the opportunity and information on how to earn a high school diploma or a General Equivalency Diploma (GED).
1.     In addition to this fundamental education and certification, individuals with scholastic ambition are encouraged to pursue further education: in vocational trades or college. Their education and skills will be valuable assets in the redevelopment of both themselves and their communities.
2.     Establish a relationship with local schools, colleges, youth centers, and technological centers to request their assistance in bringing the individuals' education to fruition.
3.     Create your own study groups held in a home, church, garage, basement, youth center, or other places.
4.     For those who desire to be educated or employed but lack clothing and/or food, initiate regular food and clothing drives to serve them.

Political Awareness
Stress the importance of being politically conscious. Encourage individuals to read relevant materials (newspapers, magazines, books, websites, etc.) to become politically literate, recognize their rights and the power of their votes.
1.     Educate the population on the duties and obligations of each local political representative to further their community involvement.
2.     Teach the residents to be alert to political dynamics that affect their lives. Impress upon them that if the politician representing their district has not made groundbreaking achievements that improve their lives and the community, then something is wrong. By "achievements," I mean available jobs, livable housing, health care, quality education, treatments for addicts, emergency shelters for the homeless, clean neighborhoods, reduced poverty, violence and crime.

Employment Placement
When an individual has completed an educational process, he or she will need to find a job. An Employment Placement Panel can be created to help find a suitable job for each individual. This will require phone calls, emails and footwork to locate available jobs. This "recruiting" process is itself a useful skill.

Teach each individual employment "etiquette" and job-readiness skills: how to speak appropriately, dress properly, maintain good personal hygiene, promptness, patience, and a good work ethic. The objective, first, is to gain employment and to begin to build a solid employment record.

Socioeconomic Commission
1.     Establish a Socioeconomic Commission consisting of entrepreneurs, bankers, economists, stockbrokers, and other business professionals. Use every means at your disposal to contact people whose resources can be a valuable asset.
2.     Your presentation to these business-oriented people must be cogent, reasonable and doable. Remember that the Peace Protocol and the Social Agenda is a unified package that includes the specific role of the Socioeconomic Commission members.
3.     The Commission’s mission is to help create a system of small businesses that in turn will promote ownership, local employment expansion and overall community economic development. In addition, the Commission's mission is to teach a grassroots individual how to administer a small business enterprise.
4.     Encourage individuals to reduce their consumer spending and debt by providing financial literacy instruction.

Peace March
Beginning with the famous August 28, 1963, march on Washington (climaxed by Martin Luther King’s "I Have A Dream" speech), there have been numerous peaceful marches that have momentarily seized our attention. The march of peace is akin to the march of war, because both are predicated on the notion of overcoming obstacles to success.

When we march in the name of peace (as we should), march with a strategic purpose that will produce tangible accessibilities: the reality of a need for peace, employment, housing, health care, education, property ownership, and other amenities. Plan a peace march to galvanize the community, to organize the community to work collectively for peace.

Community Cleanup
Another important reality is the need to clean up the community, block by block. I can already hear people moaning at the thought of having to clean up the community. But there are run-down neighborhoods that need immediate care and attention. Knock on every door on every block and ask for everyone's participation in the clean-up project.

Street by street, groups of adults, children, and youths can clean up block-by-block filth, graffiti and other scattered debris. Armed with brooms, garbage cans, plastic bags, paint brushes and rollers, and water hoses, such groups can purge their own communities of trash and the defacement of property. Upon the completion of the cleaning process, post flyers that emphasize the need for cleanliness and no littering. The rise or fall of any neighborhood can be attributed to our participatory concern of local citizens to keep the community clean, alive and well – or to continued indifference, lack of pride, and neglect.

Peace March


Community Cleanup
   
Signature Agreement
    Community Peace Accord

We the people of this community, _________________________________, do solemnly swear to participate in this Protocol for Peace to restore decorum and to provide safety for all residents. We agree to work side by side with all other people whose goal is the pursuit of peace. We are not a vigilante group, militia, nor are we working in the capacity of a law enforcement agency. We function only as an independent peace group and as concerned citizens of our community. We believe that peace can be established and maintained through dedicated work.

We agree to adhere to the standards of this document.

Signatory: _________________________________________________________

Date: _____________________________________________________________

Observing Witness: __________________________________________________

   
Postscript
    A Final Note From Tookie

There are no books or manuals on how to create a peace policy for street gangs. I have drafted this peace protocol to serve as a prototype or framework on which to build. It is a common-sense approach that beckons the heart and invites your strong intention to assist those who live in chaos and fear, both children and adults. I hope that my insight will move society – including gang members – to draft from this peace protocol and make it work.

As you move in this direction, you will learn to construct a peace policy that will meet the necessities for peace in your neighborhood, in your city, in your nation. There is much serious work ahead, and the entire community will depend upon each and every one of you. Keep in mind that even the warring souls of gang members yearn for peace but are blind to its path. Your faith, wisdom, concern, and guidance can help show them the way. Never allow yourself to be distracted or discouraged by detractors and dissenters whose views are counterproductive.

Finally, I call upon the pure energy of human beings and institutions – gangs, criminals, ex-cons, parents, churches or mosques, schools and universities, youth centers, think tanks, university professors and other educators, entrepreneurs, entertainers, human rights agencies, social organizations, politicians, newspapers, media broadcast outlets, the employed and unemployed, the wealthy and the poor, the young and the elderly, and anyone else who is interested in promoting street peace – to help create a new community of safety and well-being.

This peace protocol is not the solution. Look in the mirror. There is the solution!

Amani (Peace),
Stanley "Tookie" Williams

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
In the early 1970s, many young people of South Central Los Angeles were members of small gangs. The youngsters roamed South Central, taking property from whomever they chose, including women and children.

Stanley Tookie Williams, 17, was then a high school student with a fearsome reputation as a fighter and leader of South Central’s west side neighborhood. To protect family members and friends, Tookie – with Raymond Lee Washington, also 17 years old, who lived on the east side – created the Crips street gang for Black teenage males.

By 1979, the Crips had grown from a small Los Angeles gang of boys to an organization with membership of boys and young men who claimed the streets in many cities throughout Southern California as their “territory.” They had become like the gang members they had once sought to protect themselves from – they had become gangbangers who terrorized their own neighborhoods.

A rival gang member murdered Raymond in 1979. That same year, Tookie was arrested and charged with murdering four people. In 1981, he was convicted of those crimes and placed on death row.

Over the coming decades, to Tookie’s surprise, the Crips gang would spread across the nation and around the world.

Since 1989, Tookie has worked to redeem himself from a Crips legacy of Black- on-Black crime and community destruction. He has authored nine anti-gang books instructing youth how not to follow in his footsteps. These books are in schools, libraries and juvenile correctional facilities in the United States and Europe as well as parts of Africa and Asia. Tookie also created the Internet Project for Street Peace, an international peer mentoring program for children. He regularly provides “live” mentoring via the telephone when he calls schools and juvenile correctional facilities to steer kids away from gangs, crime and violence. He has also been nominated four times for the Nobel Peace Prize and three times for the Nobel Prize in Literature.

Tookie’s accomplishments have all been made from his 9-by-4 foot prison cell, without a chair, without a table.

Tookie is awaiting a final court ruling on his case, which will determine whether he is executed by lethal injection by the State of California or given a new trial. He has always maintained his innocence of the crimes for which he was convicted.

Tookie can be contacted through his website at http://www.tookie.com. His email address is Tookie@Tookie.com.

---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Williams

On December 13, 2005, Williams was executed by lethal injection after clemency was rejected by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, amidst debate over the death penalty and whether his anti-gang advocacy in prison represented genuine atonement. Williams was the second inmate in California to be executed in 2005.

Labels:
--

Subscribe to emails from :
- Better World News: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/bwn_at7l.us
- Learning News - children learning, how mind works: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/learn_at7l.us
- Health News - better ways of healthy living: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/health_at7l.us
- Good Morning World - Robert & Barbara Muller's daily idea-dream for a better world: http://www.goodmorningworld.org/emaillist/#subscribe
or send a request a subscription to any of the three lists here.

View these blogs:
- Better World News
- Learning News
- Health News
- Good Morning World

Learning Cooperative Participation For Better Ecology

This article comes from a competitive, capture, take, win perspective. It assumes compromise is workable and that it is practical environmentalism to further fragment nature.

What has been created here can be looked at another way from a cooperative, participative, common purpose to nurture better ecology. The brackets use words with the focus on cooperation for the common purpose.

With a common purpose to nurture better ecology little if any of nature would be destroyed or fragmented. In fact it may have been found it would be better to remove buildings etc to further unfragment nature and much more.

The came of Go can certainly be used to learn and practice cooperation - especially in Japan where Go is popular game. The popular game is highly competitive. The Zen Go sets aside competition for cooperation. By having the players take turns playing both sides for a common purpose through cooperation much can be learned.

The idea of having players 'switch' sides with a common purpose can be done with many other games kids know well.

The seldom nurtured idea of cooperation for common purpose can make all the difference in the world.
+++

Sacred & Mundane

Zen and the Art of Compromise

by Ginger Strand

Published in the November/December 2007 issue of Orion magazine

http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/493

"A rare wetland ecosystem is in immediate danger of development,” the wall in a small, square room at the Queens Museum of Art declares. “Help prevent environmental degradation by playing until both sides capture [create] territory [better ecology].” In front of the wall is a giant game board, black lines dividing it into thirty-six squares. White and black plate-sized disks are stacked beside it. Japanese visitors, math majors, and computer nerds will immediately recognize the game as a supersized version of Go.

“Go is a perfect metaphor,” artist Lillian Ball says of the exhibit. “You cannot win [nurture] until both sides win [have] territory.[better ecology]”

Go fans will immediately object that this is not true. In fact, Go is a strategic and often aggressive game in which opponents seek to surround territory by hemming in and capturing each other’s stones. But Ball’s installation, called GO ECO, uses a variant called Zen Go—reportedly developed by monks—in which an uneven number of players take turns playing both colors. The idea is that by cooperating both sides can capture [create] territory [better ecology] and thus win together. As a metaphor for community-driven environmental preservation, Zen Go is straightforward: compromise [cooperation] is the name of the game.

Compromise [cooperation] was achieved in the Southold, New York, wetlands preservation project the installation references. Southold is on Long Island’s bucolic North Fork, long neglected by developers in favor of the South Fork, home to the glitzy Hamptons. Lately, this has changed, and North Forkers have begun to fear a deluge of malls and McMansions. Ball got involved when Southold granted a developer a permit to build homes on a local cranberry bog. Convinced the bog should be preserved, she brought in a biologist, who confirmed that the bog ecosystem was not only locally significant but globally rare. Ball set out to save it.

The GO ECO installation grew directly out of Ball’s experience in Southold. In community preservation, she says, “it’s not helpful to say these are the good guys and these are the bad guys; it was a long process for me to learn how to be effective.” Effectiveness in this case meant, not filing lawsuits, but crafting a solution acceptable to all parties. Eventually, a coalition of eighty donors purchased the property—and earned tax credits—through the Peconic Land Trust. The town of Southold contributed $50,000 and set aside the land as a preserve after being offered a sanitary flow credit in exchange for it—in essence, a free pass to build homes somewhere else. The outcome was hailed as a win for all involved.

The Zen Go game reproduces this process: as players make their moves, they trigger video clips in one of four quadrants on an adjacent wall. Labeled GOVERNMENT, NEIGHBORS, BUILDERS, and SCIENTISTS, the quadrants alternately light up with views of the endangered ecosystem accompanied by voiceovers from each stakeholder’s point of view. Through a series of gorgeous and supersaturated video clips, players learn about the wetland, its importance, and the complicated give-and-take of preserving it. They must play the game not to claim the most territory, but to ensure that both sides win some territory, no matter how small.

“What’s the point of playing a game if no one wins?” a thirteen year old asked recently. It’s not surprising the teenager felt a bit disappointed. In game play, what you really want is to deliver a crushing defeat. Then again, that might be nice when it comes to saving wetlands, too. Games rarely embrace compromise [cooperation]. Environmentalism today—for better or for worse—does. 
Labels:
--

Subscribe to emails from :
- Better World News: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/bwn_at7l.us
- Learning News - children learning, how mind works: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/learn_at7l.us
- Health News - better ways of healthy living: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/health_at7l.us
- Good Morning World - Robert & Barbara Muller's daily idea-dream for a better world: http://www.goodmorningworld.org/emaillist/#subscribe
or send a request a subscription to any of the three lists here.

View these blogs:
- Better World News
- Learning News
- Health News
- Good Morning World

Olbermann On MSNBC: Bush IS A Bald Face Liar On Iran & Reasons For More War

war crimes
ethically, it is a lie.
It is indefensible.

You, Mr. Bush, are a bald-faced liar.

You not only knew all of this about Iran, in early August ...

hanged by your own words ... convicted by your own deliberate lies ...

You, sir, have no business ... being president.
+++

see the video and text here:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/120807Z.shtml

    Go to Original

    "Neocon Job"
    By Keith Olbermann
    MSNBC Countdown

    Thursday 06 December 2007

    Full text of Keith's Special Comment

    Finally, as promised, a Special Comment about the president's cataclysmic deception about Iran.

    There are few choices more terrifying than the one Mr. Bush has left us with tonight.

    We have either a president who is too dishonest to restrain himself from invoking World War Three about Iran at least six weeks after he had to have known that the analogy would be fantastic, irresponsible hyperbole - or we have a president too transcendently stupid not to have asked - at what now appears to have been a series of opportunities to do so - whether the fairy tales he either created or was fed, were still even remotely plausible.

    A pathological presidential liar, or an idiot-in-chief. It is the nightmare scenario of political science fiction: A critical juncture in our history and, contained in either answer, a president manifestly unfit to serve, and behind him in the vice presidency: an unapologetic war-monger who has long been seeing a world visible only to himself.

    After Ms. Perino's announcement from the White House late last night, the timeline is inescapable and clear.

    In August the president was told by his hand-picked Major Domo of intelligence Mike McConnell, a flinty, high-strung-looking, worrying-warrior who will always see more clouds than silver linings, that what "everybody thought" about Iran might be, in essence, crap.

    Yet on October 17th the President said of Iran and its president Ahmadinejad:

    "I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War Three, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge to make a nuclear weapon."

    And as he said that, Mr. Bush knew that at bare minimum there was a strong chance that his rhetoric was nothing more than words with which to scare the Iranians.

    Or was it, Sir, to scare the Americans?

    Does Iran not really fit into the equation here? Have you just scribbled it into the fill-in-the-blank on the same template you used, to scare us about Iraq?

    In August, any commander-in-chief still able-minded or uncorrupted or both, Sir, would have invoked the quality the job most requires: mental flexibility.

    A bright man, or an honest man, would have realized no later than the McConnell briefing that the only true danger about Iran was the damage that could be done by an unhinged, irrational Chicken Little of a president, shooting his mouth off, backed up by only his own hysteria and his own delusions of omniscience.

    Not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mr. Bush.

    The Chicken Little of presidents is the one, Sir, that you see in the mirror.

    And the mind reels at the thought of a vice president fully briefed on the revised Intel as long as two weeks ago - briefed on the fact that Iran abandoned its pursuit of this imminent threat four years ago - who never bothered to mention it to his boss.

    It is nearly forgotten today, but throughout much of Ronald Reagan's presidency it was widely believed that he was little more than a front-man for some never-viewed, behind-the-scenes, string-puller.

    Today, as evidenced by this latest remarkable, historic malfeasance, it is inescapable, that Dick Cheney is either this president's evil ventriloquist, or he thinks he is.

    What servant of any of the 42 previous presidents could possibly withhold information of this urgency and gravity, and wind up back at his desk the next morning, instead of winding up before a Congressional investigation - or a criminal one?

    Mr. Bush - if you can still hear us - if you did not previously agree to this scenario in which Dick Cheney is the actual detective and you're Remington Steele - you must disenthrall yourself: Mr. Cheney has usurped your constitutional powers, cut you out of the information loop, and led you down the path to an unprecedented presidency in which the facts are optional, the Intel is valued less than the hunch, and the assistant runs the store.

    The problem is, Sir, your assistant is robbing you - and your country - blind.

    Not merely in monetary terms, Mr. Bush, but more importantly of the traditions and righteousness for which we have stood, at great risk, for centuries: Honesty, Law, Moral Force.

    Mr. Cheney has helped, Sir, to make your Administration into the kind our ancestors saw in the 1860's and 1870's and 1880's - the ones that abandoned Reconstruction, and sent this country marching backwards into the pit of American Apartheid.

    Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland ...

    Presidents who will be remembered only in a blur of failure, Mr. Bush.

    Presidents who will be remembered only as functions of those who opposed them - the opponents whom history proved right.

    Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland ... Bush.

    Would that we could let this president off the hook by seeing him only as marionette or moron.

    But a study of the mutation of his language about Iran proves that though he may not be very good at it, he is, himself, still a manipulative, Machiavellian, snake-oil salesman.

    The Bushian etymology was tracked by Dan Froomkin at the Washington Post's website.

    It is staggering.

    March 31st: "Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon ..."

    June 5th: "Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons ..."

    June 19th: "Consequences to the Iranian government if they continue to pursue a nuclear weapon ..."

    July 12th: "The same regime in Iran that is pursuing nuclear weapons ..."

    August 6th: "This is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon ..."

    Notice a pattern?

    Trying to develop, build or pursue a nuclear weapon.

    Then, sometime between August 6th and August 9th, those terms are suddenly swapped out, so subtly that only in retrospect can we see that somebody has warned the president, not only that he has gone out too far on the limb of terror - but there may not even be a tree there ...

    McConnell, or someone, must have briefed him then.

    August 9th: "They have expressed their desire to be able to enrich uranium, which we believe is a step toward having a nuclear weapons program ..."

    August 28th: "Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons ..."

    October 4th: "You should not have the know-how on how to make a (nuclear) weapon ..."

    October 17th: "Until they suspend and/or make it clear that they, that their statements aren't real, yeah, I believe they want to have the capacity, the knowledge, in order to make a nuclear weapon."

    Before August 9th, it's: Trying to develop, build or pursue a nuclear weapon.

    After August 9th, it's: Desire, pursuit, want ... knowledge, technology, know-how to enrich uranium.

    And we are to believe, Mr. Bush, that the National Intelligence Estimate this week talks of the Iranians suspending their nuclear weapons program in 2003 ...

    And you talked of the Iranians suspending their nuclear weapons program on October 17th ...

    And that's just a coincidence?

 

---

    And we are to believe, Mr. Bush, that nobody told you any of this until last week?

    Your insistence that you were not briefed on the NIE until last week might be legally true - something like "what the definition of is is" - but with the subject matter being not interns but the threat of nuclear war.

    Legally, it might save you from some war crimes trial ... but ethically, it is a lie.

    It is indefensible.

    You have been yelling threats into a phone for nearly four months, after the guy on the other end had already hung up.

    You, Mr. Bush, are a bald-faced liar.

 

---

    And more over, you have just revealed that John Bolton, and Norman Podhoretz, and the Wall Street Journal Editorial board, are also bald-faced liars.

    We are to believe that the Intel community, or maybe the State Department, cooked the raw intelligence about Iran, falsely diminished the Iranian nuclear threat, to make you look bad?

    And you proceeded to let them make you look bad?

 

---

    You not only knew all of this about Iran, in early August ...

    But you also knew ... it was ... accurate.

    And instead of sharing this good news with the people you have obviously forgotten you represent ...

    You merely fine-tuned your terrorizing of those people, to legally cover your own backside ...

    While you filled the factual gap with sadistic visions of - as you phrased it on August 28th: a quote "nuclear holocaust" - and, as you phrased it on October 17th, quote: "World War Three."

 

---

    My comments, Mr. Bush, are often dismissed as simple repetitions of the phrase "George Bush has no business being president."

    Well, guess what?

    Tonight: hanged by your own words ... convicted by your own deliberate lies ...

    You, sir, have no business ... being president.

    Good night, and good luck.

  -------

Labels: Bush, Crimes Against Humanity, Iran War
--

Subscribe to emails from :
- Better World News: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/bwn_at7l.us
- Learning News - children learning, how mind works: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/learn_at7l.us
- Health News - better ways of healthy living: http://at7l.us/mailman/listinfo/health_at7l.us
- Good Morning World - Robert & Barbara Muller's daily idea-dream for a better world: http://www.goodmorningworld.org/emaillist/#subscribe
or send a request a subscription to any of the three lists here.

View these blogs:
- Better World News
- Learning News
- Health News
- Good Morning World