This paper has argued, using the analogy of British errors in the late 19th century, for a progressive return to a more stable and just international order, by a series of concrete steps, some of them incremental:
1) a progressive reduction of America’s bloated military and intelligence budgets, over and above that already contemplated for financial reasons.2) a progressive phase-out of the violent aspects of the so-called war on terror, while retaining traditional law enforcement means for dealing with terrorists3) Much of the recent intensification of American militarism can be traced to the “state of emergency” proclaimed on September 14, 2001, and renewed annually by American presidents ever since. We need an immediate termination of this state of emergency, and a reassessment of all the so-called “continuity of government” (COG) measures associated with it – warrantless surveillance, warrantless detention, and the militarization of domestic American security.444) a return to strategies for dealing with the problem of terrorists that rely primarily on civilian policing and intelligence.
Forty years ago I would have appealed to Congress to take these steps to defuse the state of paranoia we are living under. Today I have come to see that Congress itself is dominated by the powers that profit from what I have called America’s global war machine. The so-called “statesmen” of America are as dedicated to the preservation of American dominance as were their British predecessors.
But to say this is not to despair of America’s ability to change direction. We should keep in mind that four decades ago domestic political protest played a critical role in helping to end an unjustified war in Vietnam. It is true that in 2003 similar protests – involving one million Americans – failed to impede America’s entry into an unjustified war in Iraq. Nevertheless, the large number of protesters, assembled under relatively short notice, was impressive. The question is whether protesters can adapt their tactics to new realities and mount a sustained and effective campaign.
Under the guise of COG planning, the American war machine has been preparing for forty years to neutralize street antiwar protests. Taking cognizance of this, and using the folly of British hypermilitarism as an example, today’s antiwar movement must learn how to apply coordinated pressure within American institutions – not just by “occupying” the streets with the aid of the homeless. It is not enough simply to denounce, as did Churchill in 1908, the increasing disparity of wealth between rich and poor. One must go beyond this to see the origins of this disparity in dysfunctional institutional arrangements that are corrigible. And one of the chief of these is the so-called War on Terror.
No one can predict the success of such a movement. But I believe that global developments will persuade more and more Americans that it is necessary. It should appeal to a broad spectrum of the American electorate, from the viewers of Democracy Now on the left to the libertarian followers of Murray Rothbard, Ron Paul, and Lew Rockwell on the right.
I'm sorry I can't support that.
Not just because I loathe the show and feel it's claptrap but because I'm aware of how many stories Democracy Now refuses to cover and how Peter Dale Scott doesn't practice that crap. As a host or a guest, he will discuss 9-11 attacks beyond the official story.
Goodman shuts down any free flow of conversation.
She has no interest in it.
And 9-11 Truthers in San Francisco were actually the first people I knew who saw through her.
I honestly thought that they were seeing something that wasn't there.
But as the years have passed, she's been exposed for the fraud and gate keeper that she is. You will not find an honest discussion on her show -- not about 9-11, not about Israel, not about anything.
Peter Dale Scott is often a guest on Bonnie Faulkner's Guns & Roses (great show yesterday on China -- for a very brief time, you can hear the show in the KPFA archives -- and it airs on WBAI tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. EST). And Amy Goodman has never and will never do anything to help Bonnie.
Because Bonnie is a real journalist and a truth teller. Bonnie Faulkner puts Goody to shame and you should watch her twist and turn (Goodman) when the 9-11 crowd confronts her.
I don't want people telling me what to think. I want people providing me with information and trusting that I can process it.
Bonnie Faulkner does that. With Goodman, it's as if we're forever at the kitchen table and she's determined what we will be eating and what we won't.
Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"