Editor's
Note:
The most recent video depicting a beheading from Iraq
was
proven to be a hoax perpetrated by a San Francisco
22-year-
old trying to prove a point. We did a lot of research
after
this to examine whether Nick Berg was indeed beheaded as
reported. The results of the research follows this
week's
article. Check out the links. You will be amazed.
------------------------------------------------------------
Democratic Party Turns Toward War Party- By Stephen
Zunes
Against the backdrop of ongoing death and destruction in
Iraq as a result of the U.S. invasion and subsequent
occupation, the Democratic Party formally adopted their
2004 platform on July 28 at their convention in Boston.
The platform focused more on foreign policy than it had
in recent years. It represented an opportunity to
challenge
the Republican administration's unprecedented and
dangerous departure from the post-World War II
international legal consensus forbidding aggressive wars
as well as a means with which to offer a clear
alternative
to the Bush Doctrine.
Even the Republican Party under Barry Goldwater in 1964
and Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 did not openly
challenge
such basic international principles as the illegitimacy
of
invading a sovereign nation because of unsubstantiated
claims they might some day be a potential security
threat.
Yet not only have Senators John Kerry and John Edwards
continued to defend their support of the illegal
invasion
and occupation of Iraq, the 2004 Democratic platform
complains that the administration "did not send
sufficient
forces to accomplish the mission." The most direct
challenge
to Bush administration policies in Iraq contained in the
platform is its alleged failures to adequately equip
American
forces.
The only thing the 2004 Democratic Party platform could
offer opponents of the war is a sentence which
acknowledges
"People of good will disagree about whether America
should
have gone to war in Iraq." As the Los Angeles Times
editorialized, "Indeed they do. That is why we have
elections, and it would have been nice if the opposition
party had the guts to actually oppose it."
A Platform in Defense of Unilateralism
While the foreign policy segments of this year's
Democratic Party platform had some positive elements,
there are serious problems not only in what it did not
say, but also in much of what it did say.
For example, the platform justifies the ongoing U.S.
military occupation of Iraq by claiming "having gone to
war, we cannot afford to fail at peace. We cannot allow
a failed state in Iraq that inevitably would become a
haven for terrorists and a destabilizing force in the
Middle East." This ignores the fact that Iraq's
instability and the influx of foreign terrorists is a
direct consequence of the U.S. invasion and occupation
authorized and supported by the Democratic Party's
presidential and vice presidential nominees.
To those who are disturbed at Senator Kerry's support
for invading foreign countries in defiance of the
United Nations Charter, the platform asserts "With
John Kerry as commander-in-chief, we will never wait
for a green light from abroad when our safety is at
stake." However, there is nothing in the UN Charter
which limits the right of the United States or any
government to genuine self-defense. Such language may
be preparing the way for a President Kerry, like
President Bush, to launch invasions or other military
actions against foreign countries in defiance of
international law by simply claiming that "our
safety is at stake," just as Kerry did from the
Senate floor in justifying his support for the U.S.
invasion of Iraq.
One possible target for American forces under a Kerry
administration is Iran. The platform implies an
American right to such military intervention by
stating that "a nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable
risk to us and our allies." No concern is expressed,
however, about the already-existing nuclear arsenals
of Iran's neighbor Pakistan or of nearby Israel.
Iran has called for a nuclear-free zone in the region,
which the Democrats appear to reject, apparently
because it would require America's regional allies
to get rid of their nuclear arsenals as well. The
Democrats, like the Republicans, believe that
instead of pushing for multilateral and verifiable
arms control treaties, the United States can
effectively impose a kind of nuclear apartheid,
unilaterally determining which countries can have
nuclear weapons and which countries cannot.
Furthermore, like the neo-cons in the Bush
administration, the Democrats appear to have rejected
the longstanding doctrine of nuclear deterrence in
favor of policy based upon risky, destabilizing, and
illegal unilateral pre-emptive military strikes.
Democracy and Double Standards
The Democrats appear to be similarly selective
regarding democracy. For example, the platform
calls for strategies to "end the Castro regime as
soon as possible and enable the Cuban people to
take their rightful place in the democratic community
of the Americas." Significantly, there are no
similar calls anywhere in the platform to end any
of the scores of non-socialist dictatorships
currently in power throughout the world or of
enabling the people oppressed by these regimes -
many of which receive significant U.S. military
and economic support - to join the democratic
community of nations. Similarly, the platform
promises to "work with the international
community to increase political and economic
pressure on the Castro regime to release all
political prisoners, support civil society, promote
the important work of Cuban dissidents, and begin
a process of genuine political reform," yet there
are no calls for such pressure on any right-wing
dictatorships.
The Israel Exception
Strategic parity has long been considered the
most stabilizing relationship between traditional
antagonists if the goal is peace and security.
When it comes to American allies like Israel,
however, the Democrats instead appear to be
committed to maintaining that country's military
dominance of the region, with the platform
pledging "we will insure that, under all
circumstances, Israel retains its qualitative edge."
Regarding the city of Jerusalem, the Arab-populated
eastern half of which was seized by Israeli forces
in 1967 and subsequently annexed, the platform
insists that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel
and should remain undivided." This has been widely
acknowledged as yet another Democratic attack on
the UN Charter, which forbids any nation from
expanding its boundaries through military force,
as well as a rejoinder to a series of UN Security
Council resolutions calling on nations to not
recognize Israel's illegal annexation of East
Jerusalem. It can also be reasonably viewed as an
effort to undermine last year's Geneva Initiative
and other Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts which
call for Israeli control of Jewish neighborhoods
and Palestinian control of Arab neighborhoods in
a city which would serve as the co-capital of
Israel and Palestine with full access to holy
places by people of all faiths.
In yet another attack on international legal
principles, the platform also dismisses as
"unrealistic" any obligation for Israel to
completely withdraw from lands seized in its
1967 conquests and denies Palestinian refugees'
right to return, insisting that they instead only
be permitted to relocate to a truncated Palestinian
state which Israel might allow to be created some
time in the future.
Skewed Priorities
Despite pressing domestic needs, the Pentagon
budget now constitutes over half of all federal
discretionary spending. The United States spends
almost as much on its military as the rest of the
world combined. Never in history has one power been
so dominant on a global scale. Yet this is not
enough for the Democrats. The Democratic Platform
insists that the U.S. military "must be stronger,
faster, and better armed."
Ironically, the first reason mentioned in the
platform as to why, despite pressing needs at home,
"we must strengthen our military"
is the "asymmetrical threats we now face in
Iraq" - threats that were non-existent until the
U.S invaded that country, a decision authorized
and supported by Kerry, Edwards and the Democratic
leadership of both houses in Congress.
Opposition from the Rank-and-File
This does not mean that a majority of Democrats support
such right-wing foreign policies. For example, a poll
just prior to the convention showed that 95% of the
delegates oppose the decision to invade Iraq, something
that both their presidential and their vice presidential
nominees have steadfastly refused to do.
That the delegates were prevented from even challenging
the platform or voting to include an anti-war plank is a
demonstration of how undemocratic the "Democratic" Party
has become. Even in the 1968 Democratic convention, when
the target of anti-war activists was the incumbent
Democratic administration and when most state
delegations
were dominated by the party establishment, the delegates
were allowed to propose, debate and vote upon an
anti-war
plank, which - despite its defeat on the convention
floor - did give opponents of the Vietnam War an
opportunity
to express their views before the convention and the
national media.
It is also a sign as to just how far to the right the
Democratic Party leadership has become as compared to
the rank-and-file, which could severely weaken the
enthusiasm of the party base the Kerry campaign needs
to counter the Republicans' advantage in funding during
the fall campaign.
Finally, it is a reminder that should Kerry and Edwards
be elected, those who support international law, human
rights, and adequate funding for domestic needs will
have to continue their struggle as much as ever.
--------------------------------------------------------
More On Nick Berg Fraudulent Video
Sydney Morning Herald, Australia
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/28/1085641717320.html?oneclick=true
Forensic Blood analysis- frame by frame
http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/bloodstainanalysis.asp
50 anomalies of the Berg video
http://www.rense.com/general53/loss.htm
Digital watermarks prove Abu Ghraib videos and Berg
video came from same
recorder...
http://prisonplanet.tv/articles/may2004/052504digitalwatermarks.htm
American English and accents heard on Berg video
(Listen to audio wav file
and analysis)
http://www.aztlan.net/nick_berg_how_done.htm
Nick Berg's father angry at Administration?-Baltimore
Chronicle
http://baltimorechronicle.com/060804Hughes.shtml
How do you feel about this article? Do you agree or
disagree with
its viewpoint? Cast your vote in our new Viewpoint poll.
To
participate visit:
http://www.quotes2u.com/archives/view_Point.htm
|