A little history lesson

[3Ball]

There seems to be a popular turn of phrase going around Washington to the effect of "Let the professionals do their jobs." As in: "Why question the techniques of C.I.A. interrogators? Let the professionals do their jobs." Or: "Why all this fuss about civil rights and the F.B.I. spying on people without court orders? Let the professionals do their jobs." Well, there is a reason to fear this kind of unrestricted action by the executive should be questions: history. Here is one little story that many people don't remember, despite the fact that it was at least the second biggest scandal of the 70s (and maybe the biggest).

In 1971, on the night of the Ali-Frazer fight, a group calling itself The Citizens' Commission to Investigate the FBI broke into the Media, PA. FBI offices and stole hundreds of documents. They then began anonymously mailing them to newsrooms across the country. The government tried to stop their publication, but the story got out anyway. The program these documents detailed was COINTELPRO. The robbery is still unsolved.

COINTELPRO was a secret program begun in 1956 to infiltrate and discredit political dissident groups. These groups ranged from the American Communist Party and the Black Panthers to Martin Luther King and peaceful anti-war groups. These efforts began with illegal spying, but also included false media stories, bogus publications, forged correspondance, anonymous letters and telephone calls, pressure through landlords, tampering with mail, and disruption of meetings.

For example, false or distorted stories were often "leaked" to the news media. The FBI "leaked" an item to the LA Times that the actress Jean Seberg was carrying the baby of a Black Panther rather than her French husband after she gave a donation to the Black Panthers. Ultimately she committed suicide. In another instance agents created an intentionally offensive coloring book and released thousands of copies under fake Black Panther letterhead. In 1969 the FBI sent a fake letter to anti-war activisits supposed by the Black United Front demanding a $20,000 "security bond". When the story broke, the BUF appeared to be a group of thugs. FBI interventaion succeeding in denying Martin Luther King and other activists foundation grants and speaking engagements.

The FBI and CIA both recorded the names and addresseds of millions of pieces of 1st class mail and illegally opening also a quarter of a millions pieces of mail. Pieces of mail were sometimes delayed, tampered with, or simply disappeared. Another tactice was to create advertisements for a nonexistant political event or to advertise misinformation about a real one causing confusion.

The most notorious example is the letter written by FBI agents to Martin Luther King to pursuade him to kill himself just before he received the Nobel Prize. One line reads, "King, there is one thing left for you to do. You know what it is. You have just 34 days in which to do it."

By the way, none of this is conspiracy theory or at all controversial. It was all unmasked in the 70s by the Church Commission and is on the public record. It is interesting that most American have never even heard of COINTELPRO. At most they have a vague impression that Martin Luther King may have been spyed on by Hoover. The program was unmasked by the dissendents it worked so hard to oppress and finally undone by congress, but only after a high cost to lives and to our democracy. Today we are constantly learning of new versions of such programs, but with one crucial difference: this time without the outrage at our lost liberty.

[Peck]

Re: A little history lesson

"These groups ranged from the American Communist Party and the Black Panthers to Martin Luther King and peaceful anti-war groups."

In the time & era of which you speak one can not ignore the fact that the U.S.S.R. was a real & dangerous threat. Many people in our country were afraid that Soviet Agents had infiltrated our country on many deep & long term levels.

We were fighting a literal war agains the spread of communisim so it would be unrealistic to think that agents of our gov. would not investigate people they suspected of having ties in some fashion to this idealogy. Also one could argue that there is nothing wrong with discrediting the ideology whenever they could as well, although the same arguement can be made against this as well.

Also, I'd like to bring one other thing to the table on this.

Let's not act as though the COINTELPRO research was put together by unbiased American loving patriots.

I offer the authors of "COINTELPRO: The Untold American Story" up to see if everybody agrees this was put together by people without an agenda.

Right from the opening lines of the paper.

COINTELPRO: The Untold American Story


Compilation by Paul Wolf with contributions from Robert Boyle, Bob Brown,
Tom Burghardt, Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill, Kathleen Cleaver, Bruce
Ellison, Cynthia McKinney, Nkechi Taifa, Laura Whitehorn, Nicholas
Wilson, and Howard Zinn.

I now give you the link to Paul Wolf's web page describing his "Practice areas".

http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/lawpra...awpractice.htm

Next up I invite you to google the wonderfull works of Tom Burghardt of the Bay Area Coalition for Our Reproductive Rights.

I now give you an editorial from Mr. Burghardt, please note the date of whic this was written.

by Tom Burghardt
Editor, Antifa Info-Bulletin, September 16, 2001

(SAN FRANCISCO)--In the wake of last Tuesday's hideous terrorist attacks in New York and Washington--an atrocity in every sense of the word--Washington is preparing to launch a deadly war that threatens all of humanity with consequences too horrifying to contemplate.

It is impossible to view images of the massacre without a sense of deep sadness for the victims and their families and burning anger against the perpetrators. But let us be clear, particularly now as the dogs of war and their companions--vicious nationalism, racism and xenophobia rear their ugly heads across the United States: the organizers of the September 11 massacre are neither "fanatical" followers of the Islamic religion nor believers in the Koran's words of peace. On the contrary, these grim soldiers of apocalypse are clerical fascists intent on setting the Middle East ablaze in order to impose dictatorial theocratic regimes throughout the region.

As evidence mounts that the perpetrators were connected to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida ("The Base") organization, it is also critical that we expose the deadly roots of this group: the CIA, the corrupt Saudi dynasty and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency. It mattered not a whit to the American ruling class that two million Afghans were killed in the U.S. "jihad" against the Soviet Union. Carter, Reagan, Bush, Brzezinski, Casey...mark these names down...they should be remembered--and cursed--in the coming days. And when remembering the stunning "victory" that led the Red Army to pull out of Afghanistan in 1989 and the stage-managed collapse of the Soviet Union two years later, we should also recall other names, those of leading U.S. "conservatives" such as Paul Weyrich, Gens. John Singlaub and Daniel O. Graham, Senator John McCain and Congressman Gerald Solomon; men who were instrumental in running the Afghan contra propaganda and support networks in the West for their murderous friends, the moujahidin. Like thieves looking over their shoulders fearful their guilt will be exposed, they are now among the loudest voices demanding a bloodbath against the former "freedom fighters" so critical to their bankrupt geopolitical strategies.

Swimming against the tide in the coming days will not be easy; yet there is no other choice. If there is to be a full account of last Tuesday's massacre--and criminal prosecution of the perpetrators--justice cries out for an indictment of the architect's of the Afghan "resistance": the U.S. "intelligence" apparatus, America's own clerical fascists and imperialism itself.

Tom Burghardt is the editor of the ANTIFA Information Bulletin


Next we set our sites on this unbiased individual, Noam Chomsky. I really don't even have to talk about this guy at all. However some may not be familiar with our good MIT prof. Here is his reaction to September 11, 2001. BTW, you'll notice a trend here. Each of these unbiase individuals freely admit what a ghastly horrid crime this attack was but then goes on to blame the U.S. & it's policy's for the attacks occuring. I'll let the good Proffesor say it himself.

A Quick Reaction
Noam Chomsky
CounterPunch, September 12, 2001
The September 11 attacks were major atrocities. In terms of number of victims they do not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton's bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and probably killing tens of thousands of people (no one knows, because the US blocked an inquiry at the UN and no one cares to pursue it). Not to speak of much worse cases, which easily come to mind. But that this was a horrendous crime is not in doubt.
The primary victims, as usual, were working people: janitors, secretaries, firemen, etc. It is likely to prove to be a crushing blow to Palestinians and other poor and oppressed people. It is also likely to lead to harsh security controls, with many possible ramifications for undermining civil liberties and internal freedom.

The events reveal, dramatically, the foolishness of ideas about "missile defense." As has been obvious all along, and pointed out repeatedly by strategic analysts, if anyone wants to cause immense damage in the US, including weapons of mass destruction, they are highly unlikely to launch a missile attack, thus guaranteeing their immediate destruction. There are innumerable easier ways that are basically unstoppable. But these events will, nonetheless, be used to increase the pressure to develop these systems and put them into place. "Defense" is a thin cover for plans for militarization of space, and with good PR, even the flimsiest arguments will carry some weight among a frightened public.

In short, the crime is a gift to the hard jingoist right, those who hope to use force to control their domains. That is even putting aside the likely US actions, and what they will trigger -- possibly more attacks like this one, or worse. The prospects ahead are even more ominous than they appeared to be before the latest atrocities.

As to how to react, we have a choice. We can express justified horror; we can seek to understand what may have led to the crimes, which means making an effort to enter the minds of the likely perpetrators. If we choose the latter course, we can do no better, I think, than to listen to the words of Robert Fisk, whose direct knowledge and insight into affairs of the region is unmatched after many years of distinguished reporting. Describing "The wickedness and awesome cruelty of a crushed and humiliated people," he writes that "this is not the war of democracy versus terror that the world will be asked to believe in the coming days. It is also about American missiles smashing into Palestinian homes and US helicopters firing missiles into a Lebanese ambulance in 1996 and American shells crashing into a village called Qana and about a Lebanese militia - paid and uniformed by America's Israeli ally - hacking and raping and murdering their way through refugee camps." And much more.

Again, we have a choice: we may try to understand, or refuse to do so, contributing to the likelihood that much worse lies ahead.


Now to my favorite of the group. Ward "douche bag" Churchill.

Here is his answer to 9-11-01, again please note the date that this unbiased person wrote this.

*Warning* This post is long & I hate using articles to explain my position on something but in the case of these unbiased people I want to let their own words speak for them. If you want to skip past this I'll just summerize the areticle for you, america is bad & we all deserve to die, but feel free to make up your own mind.

"Some People Push Back" On the Justice of Roosting Chickens
written by Ward Churchill 9-11-2001

When queried by reporters concerning his views on the assassination of John F. Kennedy in November 1963, Malcolm X famously ? and quite charitably, all things considered ? replied that it was merely a case of "chickens coming home to roost."

On the morning of September 11, 2001, a few more chickens ? along with some half-million dead Iraqi children ? came home to roost in a very big way at the twin towers of New York's World Trade Center. Well, actually, a few of them seem to have nestled in at the Pentagon as well.

The Iraqi youngsters, all of them under 12, died as a predictable ? in fact, widely predicted ? result of the 1991 US "surgical" bombing of their country's water purification and sewage facilities, as well as other "infrastructural" targets upon which Iraq's civilian population depends for its very survival.

If the nature of the bombing were not already bad enough ? and it should be noted that this sort of "aerial warfare" constitutes a Class I Crime Against humanity, entailing myriad gross violations of international law, as well as every conceivable standard of "civilized" behavior ? the death toll has been steadily ratcheted up by US-imposed sanctions for a full decade now. Enforced all the while by a massive military presence and periodic bombing raids, the embargo has greatly impaired the victims' ability to import the nutrients, medicines and other materials necessary to saving the lives of even their toddlers.

All told, Iraq has a population of about 18 million. The 500,000 kids lost to date thus represent something on the order of 25 percent of their age group. Indisputably, the rest have suffered ? are still suffering ? a combination of physical debilitation and psychological trauma severe enough to prevent their ever fully recovering. In effect, an entire generation has been obliterated.

The reason for this holocaust was/is rather simple, and stated quite straightforwardly by President George Bush, the 41st "freedom-loving" father of the freedom-lover currently filling the Oval Office, George the 43rd: "The world must learn that what we say, goes," intoned George the Elder to the enthusiastic applause of freedom-loving Americans everywhere.

How Old George conveyed his message was certainly no mystery to the US public. One need only recall the 24-hour-per-day dissemination of bombardment videos on every available TV channel, and the exceedingly high ratings of these telecasts, to gain a sense of how much they knew.

In trying to affix a meaning to such things, we would do well to remember the wave of elation that swept America at reports of what was happening along the so-called Highway of Death: perhaps 100,000 "towel-heads" and "camel jockeys" ? or was it "sand ******s" that week? ? in full retreat, routed and effectively defenseless, many of them conscripted civilian laborers, slaughtered in a single day by jets firing the most hyper-lethal types of ordnance.

It was a performance worthy of the nazis during the early months of their drive into Russia. And it should be borne in mind that Good Germans gleefully cheered that butchery, too. Indeed, support for Hitler suffered no serious erosion among Germany's "innocent civilians" until the defeat at Stalingrad in 1943.

There may be a real utility to reflecting further, this time upon the fact that it was pious Americans who led the way in assigning the onus of collective guilt to the German people as a whole, not for things they as individuals had done, but for what they had allowed ? nay, empowered ? their leaders and their soldiers to do in their name.

If the principle was valid then, it remains so now, as applicable to Good Americans as it was the Good Germans. And the price exacted from the Germans for the faultiness of their moral fiber was truly ghastly.

Returning now to the children, and to the effects of the post-Gulf War embargo ? continued bull force by Bush the Elder's successors in the Clinton administration as a gesture of its "resolve" to finalize what George himself had dubbed the "New World Order" of American military/economic domination ? it should be noted that not one but two high United Nations officials attempting to coordinate delivery of humanitarian aid to Iraq resigned in succession as protests against US policy.

One of them, former U.N. Assistant Secretary General Denis Halladay, repeatedly denounced what was happening as "a systematic program . . . of deliberate genocide." His statements appeared in the New York Times and other papers during the fall of 1998, so it can hardly be contended that the American public was "unaware" of them.

Shortly thereafter, Secretary of State Madeline Albright openly confirmed Halladay's assessment. Asked during the widely-viewed TV program Meet the Press to respond to his "allegations," she calmly announced that she'd decided it was "worth the price" to see that U.S. objectives were achieved.

The Politics of a Perpetrator Population

As a whole, the American public greeted these revelations with yawns..

There were, after all, far more pressing things than the unrelenting misery/death of a few hundred thousand Iraqi tikes to be concerned with. Getting "Jeremy" and "Ellington" to their weekly soccer game, for instance, or seeing to it that little "Tiffany" an "Ashley" had just the right roll-neck sweaters to go with their new cords. And, to be sure, there was the yuppie holy war against ashtrays ? for "our kids," no less ? as an all-absorbing point of political focus.

In fairness, it must be admitted that there was an infinitesimally small segment of the body politic who expressed opposition to what was/is being done to the children of Iraq. It must also be conceded, however, that those involved by-and-large contented themselves with signing petitions and conducting candle-lit prayer vigils, bearing "moral witness" as vast legions of brown-skinned five-year-olds sat shivering in the dark, wide-eyed in horror, whimpering as they expired in the most agonizing ways imaginable.

Be it said as well, and this is really the crux of it, that the "resistance" expended the bulk of its time and energy harnessed to the systemically-useful task of trying to ensure, as "a principle of moral virtue" that nobody went further than waving signs as a means of "challenging" the patently exterminatory pursuit of Pax Americana. So pure of principle were these "dissidents," in fact, that they began literally to supplant the police in protecting corporations profiting by the carnage against suffering such retaliatory "violence" as having their windows broken by persons less "enlightened" ? or perhaps more outraged ? than the self-anointed "peacekeepers."

Property before people, it seems ? or at least the equation of property to people ? is a value by no means restricted to America's boardrooms. And the sanctimony with which such putrid sentiments are enunciated turns out to be nauseatingly similar, whether mouthed by the CEO of Standard Oil or any of the swarm of comfort zone "pacifists" queuing up to condemn the black block after it ever so slightly disturbed the functioning of business-as-usual in Seattle.

Small wonder, all-in-all, that people elsewhere in the world ? the Mideast, for instance ? began to wonder where, exactly, aside from the streets of the US itself, one was to find the peace America's purportedly oppositional peacekeepers claimed they were keeping.

The answer, surely, was plain enough to anyone unblinded by the kind of delusions engendered by sheer vanity and self-absorption.

So, too, were the implications in terms of anything changing, out there, in America's free-fire zones.

Tellingly, it was at precisely this point ? with the genocide in Iraq officially admitted and a public response demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that there were virtually no Americans, including most of those professing otherwise, doing anything tangible to stop it ? that the combat teams which eventually commandeered the aircraft used on September 11 began to infiltrate the United States.

Meet the "Terrorists"

Of the men who came, there are a few things demanding to be said in the face of the unending torrent of disinformational drivel unleashed by George Junior and the corporate "news" media immediately following their successful operation on September 11.

They did not, for starters, "initiate" a war with the US, much less commit "the first acts of war of the new millennium."

A good case could be made that the war in which they were combatants has been waged more-or-less continuously by the "Christian West" ? now proudly emblematized by the United States ? against the "Islamic East" since the time of the First Crusade, about 1,000 years ago. More recently, one could argue that the war began when Lyndon Johnson first lent significant support to Israel's dispossession/displacement of Palestinians during the 1960s, or when George the Elder ordered "Desert Shield" in 1990, or at any of several points in between. Any way you slice it, however, if what the combat teams did to the WTC and the Pentagon can be understood as acts of war ? and they can ? then the same is true of every US "overflight' of Iraqi territory since day one. The first acts of war during the current millennium thus occurred on its very first day, and were carried out by U.S. aviators acting under orders from their then-commander-in-chief, Bill Clinton. The most that can honestly be said of those involved on September 11 is that they finally responded in kind to some of what this country has dispensed to their people as a matter of course. That they waited so long to do so is, notwithstanding the 1993 action at the WTC, more than anything a testament to their patience and restraint.

They did not license themselves to "target innocent civilians."

There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . . Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire ? the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved ? and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" ? a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" ? counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in ? and in many cases excelling at ? it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.

The men who flew the missions against the WTC and Pentagon were not "cowards."

That distinction properly belongs to the "firm-jawed lads" who delighted in flying stealth aircraft through the undefended airspace of Baghdad, dropping payload after payload of bombs on anyone unfortunate enough to be below ? including tens of thousands of genuinely innocent civilians ? while themselves incurring all the risk one might expect during a visit to the local video arcade. Still more, the word describes all those "fighting men and women" who sat at computer consoles aboard ships in the Persian Gulf, enjoying air-conditioned comfort while launching cruise missiles into neighborhoods filled with random human beings. Whatever else can be said of them, the men who struck on September 11 manifested the courage of their convictions, willingly expending their own lives in attaining their objectives.

Nor were they "fanatics" devoted to "Islamic fundamentalism."

One might rightly describe their actions as "desperate." Feelings of desperation, however, are a perfectly reasonable ? one is tempted to say "normal" ? emotional response among persons confronted by the mass murder of their children, particularly when it appears that nobody else really gives a damn (ask a Jewish survivor about this one, or, even more poignantly, for all the attention paid them, a Gypsy). That desperate circumstances generate desperate responses is no mysterious or irrational principle, of the sort motivating fanatics. Less is it one peculiar to Islam. Indeed, even the FBI's investigative reports on the combat teams' activities during the months leading up to September 11 make it clear that the members were not fundamentalist Muslims. Rather, it's pretty obvious at this point that they were secular activists ? soldiers, really ? who, while undoubtedly enjoying cordial relations with the clerics of their countries, were motivated far more by the grisly realities of the U.S. war against them than by a set of religious beliefs.

And still less were they/their acts "insane."

Insanity is a condition readily associable with the very American idea that one ? or one's country ? holds what amounts to a "divine right" to commit genocide, and thus to forever do so with impunity. The term might also be reasonably applied to anyone suffering genocide without attempting in some material way to bring the process to a halt. Sanity itself, in this frame of reference, might be defined by a willingness to try and destroy the perpetrators and/or the sources of their ability to commit their crimes. (Shall we now discuss the US "strategic bombing campaign" against Germany during World War II, and the mental health of those involved in it?)

Which takes us to official characterizations of the combat teams as an embodiment of "evil."

Evil ? for those inclined to embrace the banality of such a concept ? was perfectly incarnated in that malignant toad known as Madeline Albright, squatting in her studio chair like Jaba the Hutt, blandly spewing the news that she'd imposed a collective death sentence upon the unoffending youth of Iraq. Evil was to be heard in that great American hero "Stormin' Norman" Schwartzkopf's utterly dehumanizing dismissal of their systematic torture and annihilation as mere "collateral damage." Evil, moreover, is a term appropriate to describing the mentality of a public that finds such perspectives and the policies attending them acceptable, or even momentarily tolerable.

Had it not been for these evils, the counterattacks of September 11 would never have occurred. And unless "the world is rid of such evil," to lift a line from George Junior, September 11 may well end up looking like a lark. There is no reason, after all, to believe that the teams deployed in the assaults on the WTC and the Pentagon were the only such, that the others are composed of "Arabic-looking individuals" ? America's indiscriminately lethal arrogance and psychotic sense of self-entitlement have long since given the great majority of the world's peoples ample cause to be at war with it ? or that they are in any way dependent upon the seizure of civilian airliners to complete their missions.

To the contrary, there is every reason to expect that there are many other teams in place, tasked to employ altogether different tactics in executing operational plans at least as well-crafted as those evident on September 11, and very well equipped for their jobs. This is to say that, since the assaults on the WTC and Pentagon were act of war ? not "terrorist incidents" ? they must be understood as components in a much broader strategy designed to achieve specific results. From this, it can only be adduced that there are plenty of other components ready to go, and that they will be used, should this become necessary in the eyes of the strategists. It also seems a safe bet that each component is calibrated to inflict damage at a level incrementally higher than the one before (during the 1960s, the Johnson administration employed a similar policy against Vietnam, referred to as "escalation").

Since implementation of the overall plan began with the WTC/Pentagon assaults, it takes no rocket scientist to decipher what is likely to happen next, should the U.S. attempt a response of the inexcusable variety to which it has long entitled itself.

About Those Boys (and Girls) in the Bureau

There's another matter begging for comment at this point. The idea that the FBI's "counterterrorism task forces" can do a thing to prevent what will happen is yet another dimension of America's delusional pathology.. The fact is that, for all its publicly-financed "image-building" exercises, the Bureau has never shown the least aptitude for anything of the sort.

Oh, yeah, FBI counterintelligence personnel have proven quite adept at framing anarchists, communists and Black Panthers, sometimes murdering them in their beds or the electric chair. The Bureau's SWAT units have displayed their ability to combat child abuse in Waco by burning babies alive, and its vaunted Crime Lab has been shown to pad its "crime-fighting' statistics by fabricating evidence against many an alleged car thief. But actual "heavy-duty bad guys" of the sort at issue now?

This isn't a Bruce Willis/Chuck Norris/Sly Stallone movie, after all.. And J. Edgar Hoover doesn't get to approve either the script or the casting.

The number of spies, saboteurs and bona fide terrorists apprehended, or even detected by the FBI in the course of its long and slimy history could be counted on one's fingers and toes. On occasion, its agents have even turned out to be the spies, and, in many instances, the terrorists as well.

To be fair once again, if the Bureau functions as at best a carnival of clowns where its "domestic security responsibilities" are concerned, this is because ? regardless of official hype ? it has none. It is now, as it's always been, the national political police force, and instrument created and perfected to ensure that all Americans, not just the consenting mass, are "free" to do exactly as they're told.

The FBI and "cooperating agencies" can be thus relied upon to set about "protecting freedom" by destroying whatever rights and liberties were left to U.S. citizens before September 11 (in fact, they've already received authorization to begin). Sheeplike, the great majority of Americans can also be counted upon to bleat their approval, at least in the short run, believing as they always do that the nasty implications of what they're doing will pertain only to others.

Oh Yeah, and "The Company," Too

A possibly even sicker joke is the notion, suddenly in vogue, that the CIA will be able to pinpoint "terrorist threats," "rooting out their infrastructure" where it exists and/or "terminating" it before it can materialize, if only it's allowed to beef up its "human intelligence gathering capacity" in an unrestrained manner (including full-bore operations inside the US, of course).

Yeah. Right.

Since America has a collective attention-span of about 15 minutes, a little refresher seems in order: "The Company" had something like a quarter-million people serving as "intelligence assets" by feeding it information in Vietnam in 1968, and it couldn't even predict the Tet Offensive. God knows how many spies it was fielding against the USSR at the height of Ronald Reagan's version of the Cold War, and it was still caught flatfooted by the collapse of the Soviet Union.

As to destroying "terrorist infrastructures," one would do well to remember Operation Phoenix, another product of its open season in Vietnam. In that one, the CIA enlisted elite US units like the Navy Seals and Army Special Forces, as well as those of friendly countries ? the south Vietnamese Rangers, for example, and Australian SAS ? to run around "neutralizing" folks targeted by The Company's legion of snitches as "guerrillas" (as those now known as "terrorists" were then called).

Sound familiar?

Upwards of 40,000 people ? mostly bystanders, as it turns out ? were murdered by Phoenix hit teams before the guerrillas, stronger than ever, ran the US and its collaborators out of their country altogether.

And these are the guys who are gonna save the day, if unleashed to do their thing in North America?

The net impact of all this "counterterrorism" activity upon the combat teams' ability to do what they came to do, of course, will be nil. Instead, it's likely to make it easier for them to operate (it's worked that way in places like Northern Ireland). And, since denying Americans the luxury of reaping the benefits of genocide in comfort was self-evidently a key objective of the WTC/Pentagon assaults, it can be stated unequivocally that a more overt display of the police state mentality already pervading this country simply confirms the magnitude of their victory.

On Matters of Proportion and Intent

As things stand, including the 1993 detonation at the WTC, "Arab terrorists" have responded to the massive and sustained American terror bombing of Iraq with a total of four assaults by explosives inside the US. That's about 1% of the 50,000 bombs the Pentagon announced were rained on Baghdad alone during the Gulf War (add in Oklahoma City and you'll get something nearer an actual 1%). They've managed in the process to kill about 5,000 Americans, or roughly 1% of the dead Iraqi children (the percentage is far smaller if you factor in the killing of adult Iraqi civilians, not to mention troops butchered as/after they'd surrendered and/or after the "war-ending" ceasefire had been announced).

In terms undoubtedly more meaningful to the property/profit-minded American mainstream, they've knocked down a half-dozen buildings ? albeit some very well-chosen ones ? as opposed to the "strategic devastation" visited upon the whole of Iraq, and punched a $100 billion hole in the earnings outlook of major corporate shareholders, as opposed to the U.S. obliteration of Iraq's entire economy.

With that, they've given Americans a tiny dose of their own medicine..

This might be seen as merely a matter of "vengeance" or "retribution," and, unquestionably, America has earned it, even if it were to add up only to something so ultimately petty.

The problem is that vengeance is usually framed in terms of "getting even," a concept which is plainly inapplicable in this instance. As the above data indicate, it would require another 49,996 detonations killing 495,000 more Americans, for the "terrorists" to "break even" for the bombing of Baghdad/extermination of Iraqi children alone. And that's to achieve "real number" parity. To attain an actual proportional parity of damage ? the US is about 15 times as large as Iraq in terms of population, even more in terms of territory ? they would, at a minimum, have to blow up about 300,000 more buildings and kill something on the order of 7.5 million people.

Were this the intent of those who've entered the US to wage war against it, it would remain no less true that America and Americans were only receiving the bill for what they'd already done.

Payback, as they say, can be a real mother****er (ask the Germans).

There is, however, no reason to believe that retributive parity is necessarily an item on the agenda of those who planned the WTC/Pentagon operation. If it were, given the virtual certainty that they possessed the capacity to have inflicted far more damage than they did, there would be a lot more American bodies lying about right now.

Hence, it can be concluded that ravings carried by the "news" media since September 11 have contained at least one grain of truth: The peoples of the Mideast "aren't like" Americans, not least because they don't "value life' in the same way. By this, it should be understood that Middle-Easterners, unlike Americans, have no history of exterminating others purely for profit, or on the basis of racial animus. Thus, we can appreciate the fact that they value life ? all lives, not just their own ? far more highly than do their U.S. counterparts.

The Makings of a Humanitarian Strategy

In sum one can discern a certain optimism ? it might even be call humanitarianism ? imbedded in the thinking of those who presided over the very limited actions conducted on September 11.

Their logic seems to have devolved upon the notion that the American people have condoned what has been/is being done in their name ? indeed, are to a significant extent actively complicit in it ? mainly because they have no idea what it feels like to be on the receiving end.

Now they do.

That was the "medicinal" aspect of the attacks.

To all appearances, the idea is now to give the tonic a little time to take effect, jolting Americans into the realization that the sort of pain they're now experiencing first-hand is no different from ? or the least bit more excruciating than ? that which they've been so cavalier in causing others, and thus to respond appropriately.

More bluntly, the hope was ? and maybe still is ? that Americans, stripped of their presumed immunity from incurring any real consequences for their behavior, would comprehend and act upon a formulation as uncomplicated as "stop killing our kids, if you want your own to be safe."

Either way, it's a kind of "reality therapy" approach, designed to afford the American people a chance to finally "do the right thing" on their own, without further coaxing.

Were the opportunity acted upon in some reasonably good faith fashion ? a sufficiently large number of Americans rising up and doing whatever is necessary to force an immediate lifting of the sanctions on Iraq, for instance, or maybe hanging a few of America's abundant supply of major war criminals (Henry Kissinger comes quickly to mind, as do Madeline Albright, Colin Powell, Bill Clinton and George the Elder) ? there is every reason to expect that military operations against the US on its domestic front would be immediately suspended.

Whether they would remain so would of course be contingent upon follow-up. By that, it may be assumed that American acceptance of onsite inspections by international observers to verify destruction of its weapons of mass destruction (as well as dismantlement of all facilities in which more might be manufactured), Nuremberg-style trials in which a few thousand US military/corporate personnel could be properly adjudicated and punished for their Crimes Against humanity, and payment of reparations to the array of nations/peoples whose assets the US has plundered over the years, would suffice.

Since they've shown no sign of being unreasonable or vindictive, it may even be anticipated that, after a suitable period of adjustment and reeducation (mainly to allow them to acquire the skills necessary to living within their means), those restored to control over their own destinies by the gallant sacrifices of the combat teams the WTC and Pentagon will eventually (re)admit Americans to the global circle of civilized societies. Stranger things have happened.

In the Alternative

Unfortunately, noble as they may have been, such humanitarian aspirations were always doomed to remain unfulfilled. For it to have been otherwise, a far higher quality of character and intellect would have to prevail among average Americans than is actually the case.

Perhaps the strategists underestimated the impact a couple of generations-worth of media indoctrination can produce in terms of demolishing the capacity of human beings to form coherent thoughts. Maybe they forgot to factor in the mind-numbing effects of the indoctrination passed off as education in the US.

Then, again, it's entirely possible they were aware that a decisive majority of American adults have been reduced by this point to a level much closer to the kind of immediate self-gratification entailed in Pavlovian stimulus/response patterns than anything accessible by appeals to higher logic, and still felt morally obliged to offer the dolts an option to quit while they were ahead.

What the hell? It was worth a try.

But it's becoming increasingly apparent that the dosage of medicine administered was entirely insufficient to accomplish its purpose.

Although there are undoubtedly exceptions, Americans for the most part still don't get it.

Already, they've desecrated the temporary tomb of those killed in the WTC, staging a veritable pep rally atop the mangled remains of those they profess to honor, treating the whole affair as if it were some bizarre breed of contact sport. And, of course, there are the inevitable pom-poms shaped like American flags, the school colors worn as little red-white-and-blue ribbons affixed to labels, sportscasters in the form of "counterterrorism experts" drooling mindless color commentary during the pregame warm-up.

Refusing the realization that the world has suddenly shifted its axis, and that they are therefore no longer "in charge," they have by-and-large reverted instantly to type, working themselves into their usual bloodlust on the now obsolete premise that the bloodletting will "naturally" occur elsewhere and to someone else.

"Patriotism," a wise man once observed, "is the last refuge of scoundrels."

And the braided, he might of added.

Braided Scoundrel-in-Chief, George Junior, lacking even the sense to be careful what he wished for, has teamed up with a gaggle of fundamentalist Christian clerics like Billy Graham to proclaim a "New Crusade" called "Infinite Justice" aimed at "ridding the world of evil."

One could easily make light of such rhetoric, remarking upon how unseemly it is for a son to threaten his father in such fashion ? or a president to so publicly contemplate the murder/suicide of himself and his cabinet ? but the matter is deadly serious.

They are preparing once again to sally forth for the purpose of roasting brown-skinned children by the scores of thousands. Already, the B-1 bombers and the aircraft carriers and the missile frigates are en route, the airborne divisions are gearing up to go.

To where? Afghanistan?

The Sudan?

Iraq, again (or still)?

How about Grenada (that was fun)?

Any of them or all. It doesn't matter.


The desire to pummel the helpless runs rabid as ever.

Only, this time it's different.

The time the helpless aren't, or at least are not so helpless as they were.

This time, somewhere, perhaps in an Afghani mountain cave, possibly in a Brooklyn basement, maybe another local altogether ? but somewhere, all the same ? there's a grim-visaged (wo)man wearing a Clint Eastwood smile.

"Go ahead, punks," s/he's saying, "Make my day."

And when they do, when they launch these airstrikes abroad ? or may a little later; it will be at a time conforming to the "terrorists"' own schedule, and at a place of their choosing ? the next more intensive dose of medicine administered here "at home."

Of what will it consist this time? Anthrax? Mustard gas? Sarin? A tactical nuclear device?

That, too, is their choice to make.

Looking back, it will seem to future generations inexplicable why Americans were unable on their own, and in time to save themselves, to accept a rule of nature so basic that it could be mouthed by an actor, Lawrence Fishburn, in a movie, The Cotton Club.

"You've got to learn, " the line went, "that when you push people around, some people push back."

As they should.

As they must.

And as they undoubtedly will.

There is justice in such symmetry.

=====================================
ADDENDUM
=====================================

The preceding was a "first take" reading, more a stream-of-consciousness interpretive reaction to the September 11 counterattack than a finished piece on the topic. Hence, I'll readily admit that I've been far less than thorough, and quite likely wrong about a number of things.

For instance, it may not have been (only) the ghosts of Iraqi children who made their appearance that day. It could as easily have been some or all of their butchered Palestinian cousins.

Or maybe it was some or all of the at least 3.2 million Indochinese who perished as a result of America's sustained and genocidal assault on Southeast Asia (1959-1975), not to mention the millions more who've died because of the sanctions imposed thereafter.

Perhaps there were a few of the Korean civilians massacred by US troops at places like No Gun Ri during the early ?50s, or the hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians ruthlessly incinerated in the ghastly fire raids of World War II (only at Dresden did America bomb Germany in a similar manner).

And, of course, it could have been those vaporized in the militarily pointless nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

There are others, as well, a vast and silent queue of faceless victims, stretching from the million-odd Filipinos slaughtered during America's "Indian War" in their islands at the beginning of the twentieth century, through the real Indians, America's own, massacred wholesale at places like Horseshoe Bend and the Bad Axe, Sand Creek and Wounded Knee, the Wa****a, Bear River, and the Marias.

Was it those who expired along the Cherokee Trial of Tears of the Long Walk of the Navajo?

Those murdered by smallpox at Fort Clark in 1836?

Starved to death in the concentration camp at Bosque Redondo during the 1860s?

Maybe those native people claimed for scalp bounty in all 48 of the continental US states? Or the Raritans whose severed heads were kicked for sport along the streets of what was then called New Amsterdam, at the very site where the WTC once stood?

One hears, too, the whispers of those lost on the Middle Passage, and of those whose very flesh was sold in the slave market outside the human kennel from whence Wall Street takes its name.

And of coolie laborers, imported by the gross-dozen to lay the tracks of empire across scorching desert sands, none of them allotted "a Chinaman's chance" of surviving.

The list is too long, too awful to go on.

No matter what its eventual fate, America will have gotten off very, very cheap.

The full measure of its guilt can never be fully balanced or atoned for.


Ward Churchill is professor of American Indian Studies with the Department of Ethnic studies, University of Colorado at Boulder.


Kathleen Cleaver was the press secretary for the black panthers for God's sake. Here is a websight to check out her accomplishments. http://www.aaregistry.com/african_am...ns_very_active


Bruce Ellison was the defense lawyer for Leonard Peltier.

Cynthia McKinney, I'm not sure if this is the former congresswoman or not so I won't comment.

Here is the staff bio of Nkechi Taifa, please note the web address you have to visit to get there. That's right kids it's another of those unbiased patriots, George Soros

http://www.soros.org/initiatives/was...aff_bios#taifa

Laura Whitehorn spent 14 years in prison for being a domestic terrorist.


Frankly I've never heard of Nicholas Wilson before so I have no idea who he is.

Here is a site for Howard Zinn fans. The words radical liberal are used openly & often.

http://www.geocities.com/howardzinnfans/


Now, if anybody is even reading this, why did I do all of that? Simple to reply to 3balls suposition in his post. "It is interesting that most American have never even heard of COINTELPRO."

I contend the reason most people know little to nothing about this is because even the left wing media of the main streem press will not stake their reputations on writtings by these individuals & if you are going to count the Church commision as your source then it's also fair to say that Frank Church's group was as responsible for the intellegence problems that led to 9/11 as anything done by anyone else including both Bill Clinton & George W Bush.

Also I did not do any of the above to discredit anything that was written by 3ball or even the authors. However I think is it highly important that we see who is writing this.

[3Ball]

Re: A little history lesson

Peck, you're absolutely right that the FBI was out to disrupt and discredit people with an agenda. People with a lefty agenda. And they swept in everyone from folks that probably needed to be spied on, lefties with a violent twist, to people like Martin Luther King who, I think we can agree, was not prone to violence. In fact he spent his entire career campaigning against violence, including the violence our own government was committing at the time. They were all swept together because they were of a particular political pursuasion.

Howard Zinn, for example, isn't a liberal Democrat. He's an anarchist (actually a libertarian socialist, but the terms get confusing) who equally despises Democrats and Republican. That's not the point. Americans are supposed to be allowed to believe what they want and do whatever they can inside the law to influence the democratic process. In this case it was the FBI that was working outside the law.

I'm very impressed that you are willing to admit that you don't dispute the facts.

[Bat Boy]

Re: A little history lesson

Peck, you're absolutely right that the FBI was out to disrupt and discredit people with an agenda. People with a lefty agenda. And they swept in everyone from folks that probably needed to be spied on, lefties with a violent twist, to people like Martin Luther King who, I think we can agree, was not prone to violence. In fact he spent his entire career campaigning against violence, including the violence our own government was committing at the time. They were all swept together because they were of a particular political pursuasion.

Howard Zinn, for example, isn't a liberal Democrat. He's an anarchist (actually a libertarian socialist, but the terms get confusing) who equally despises Democrats and Republican. That's not the point. Americans are supposed to be allowed to believe what they want and do whatever they can inside the law to influence the democratic process. In this case it was the FBI that was working outside the law.

I'm very impressed that you are willing to admit that you don't dispute the facts.

This is a complicated topic, and cannot be discussed in a chronological vacuum. The complaints of government overreaching began significantly before the 60's, when MLK was prominent, at least back into the 30's and 40's when there actually were numerous Communists in and near our government. We need to be careful about criticizing the actions of the government from the safe perch of history. No political party or ideology is blameless on this, nor should either political party be too strongly condemned for their actions on this given the dangerous times in which we lived then.

If as 3Ball says, only (or mainly) lefties were targeted, which I think is essentially correct, then there should be some recognition that lefties were targeted by both Dems and Republicans, by both liberals and conservatives. If you are going to stress that MLK got targeted, and he was, you should point out in fairness two things that are factual: first, the targeting of MLK was at the hands of revered liberal icon Bobby Kennedy, as Attorney General, and during a Democratic administration; second, MLK was in fact associating with known Communists. In other words, yes he was targeted for surveillance, and indeed they did "sweep in" lots of others for surveillance too, but do not lose sight of the fact that there was good cause to target him. The stuff about trying to harass him into suicide is indefensible, in the sense that I believe surveillance was, but again all of this was on the watch, if not direct orders of, Bobby Kennedy. If MLK was being targeted because of his lefty beliefs, what is your explanation for why it was occurring at the direction of lefty RFK?

In hindsight, it is easy to view MLK in a purely benign light and to ignore that he did in fact have troubling associations. If the conduct of the government is to be criticized, and it is deserving of some criticism, then we must do so on a fair and full record.

[3Ball]

Re: A little history lesson

BatBoy, You are absolutely right to say that Democrats were as complicit in this as anyone. To a great extent they were in charge during some of the worst offenses. This is basically a story of the hard right, center right, and center left ganging up on lefty ideology that they all wanted surpressed.

I would like to hear, however, you views on MLK's "troublin" associations...

[Peck]

Re: A little history lesson

Peck, you're absolutely right that the FBI was out to disrupt and discredit people with an agenda. People with a lefty agenda. And they swept in everyone from folks that probably needed to be spied on, lefties with a violent twist, to people like Martin Luther King who, I think we can agree, was not prone to violence. In fact he spent his entire career campaigning against violence, including the violence our own government was committing at the time. They were all swept together because they were of a particular political pursuasion.

Howard Zinn, for example, isn't a liberal Democrat. He's an anarchist (actually a libertarian socialist, but the terms get confusing) who equally despises Democrats and Republican. That's not the point. Americans are supposed to be allowed to believe what they want and do whatever they can inside the law to influence the democratic process. In this case it was the FBI that was working outside the law.

I'm very impressed that you are willing to admit that you don't dispute the facts.

I'm not sure if I'm supposed to take that as a compliment or an insult?

However I'll just say this. Do I dispute that our government in the past or in the present or even in the future has/are/will do something unethical (probably illeagle) & even subversive?

No, not at all.

However I just don't subscribe to the theory that all of the gov. is evil & subversive.

I will say this though because I know you are trying to compare it to the Republican Patriot act. You will notice who was the President & who held the congress in the 1960's.

I know you've already aknowledged that, but I just wanted to point it out again.

Now, ask me if I think it was wrong? I'll answer this, I don't know.

In theory it is wrong however we only have the writings of people who had an agenda & even the Church commision was put in place to destroy our national intel. agency as the only side being presented.

That does not mean there is another side to tell, it may just be what it sounds like. However that doesn't mean there isn't another side either.

Remember communism was as much a threat to them as terrorism is to us, even more so IMO.

It would be hard to judge those that lived in that time without knowing first hand the dangers we faced & even the mood of the country.

[sixthman]

Re: A little history lesson

It would be hard to judge those that lived in that time without knowing first hand the dangers we faced & even the mood of the country.

Back in the era we are talking about, as silly as it may seem today, anyone who openly fought for equality of opportunity for blacks was considered a radical and dangerous to society by right wingers like J. Edward Hoover.

In the convoluted thinking of right wingers of that day, civil rights activists were leftist trouble makers who were in concert with Communists. (Communists consistently advocated equal rights for blacks and pointed to America's institutionalized racism as proof that American society was unjust.)

Those who defended the rights of civil rights activists, activists now known as heroes, were considered radical leftists who were "soft on Communism". Every one of them.

Just like President Bush charges critics of the occupation of Iraq as "soft on terrorism", right wingers of 50 years ago labeled civil rights activists as "soft on communism".

[3Ball]

Re: A little history lesson

I'm not sure if I'm supposed to take that as a compliment or an insult?

However I'll just say this. Do I dispute that our government in the past or in the present or even in the future has/are/will do something unethical (probably illeagle) & even subversive?

No, not at all.

However I just don't subscribe to the theory that all of the gov. is evil & subversive.

I will say this though because I know you are trying to compare it to the Republican Patriot act. You will notice who was the President & who held the congress in the 1960's.

I know you've already aknowledged that, but I just wanted to point it out again.

Now, ask me if I think it was wrong? I'll answer this, I don't know.

In theory it is wrong however we only have the writings of people who had an agenda & even the Church commision was put in place to destroy our national intel. agency as the only side being presented.

That does not mean there is another side to tell, it may just be what it sounds like. However that doesn't mean there isn't another side either.

Remember communism was as much a threat to them as terrorism is to us, even more so IMO.

It would be hard to judge those that lived in that time without knowing first hand the dangers we faced & even the mood of the country.

It sounded a little funny, but it was meant to be a compliment! By the way, I certainly don't think that all government is evil. Communisim was a threat, but remember, our own government is often a threat to us as well. We have to be as democratic as possible. Anything else means just a little more tyranny...juuust a little more tyranny. The price of liberty, my friend, the price of liberty.

[Since86]

Re: A little history lesson

Back in the era we are talking about, as silly as it may seem today, anyone who openly fought for equality of opportunity for blacks was considered a radical and dangerous to society by right wingers like J. Edward Hoover.

"Right wingers," like this man?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_...sional_service

Both sides were just as guilty, everyone has agreed on that so far, except you.

[sixthman]

Re: A little history lesson

"Right wingers," like this man?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_...sional_service

Both sides were just as guilty, everyone has agreed on that so far, except you.

Did I say anywhere this is a partisan issue? Why insert Democrats vs. Republicans? This is about the fight for a fairer society.

J. Edgar Hoover may well have been a Democrat. The record of the conservative wing of the Democratic party, mostly southerners, was as absymal on civil rights issues as the record of the conservatives within the Republican party.

The heroes were the so called "leftists" in each party who had the smarts to first figure out what was right and wrong regarding race - and then had the courage to act on their convictions, despite considerable hardship.

[3Ball]

Re: A little history lesson

Did I say anywhere this is a partisan issue? Why insert Democrats vs. Republicans? This is about the fight for a fairer society.

J. Edgar Hoover may well have been a Democrat. The record of the conservative wing of the Democratic party, mostly southerners, was as absymal on civil rights issues as the record of the conservatives within the Republican party.

The heroes were the so called "leftists" in each party who had the smarts to first figure out what was right and wrong regarding race - and then had the courage to act on their convictions, despite considerable hardship.

Yes, this is right, but it is even more true that it was the leftists that identified with neither party that were the real victims. I think we all need to be reminded from time to time that the "political spectrum" represented by the two major parties is basically a small sliver taken from the center right of possible world ideologies. Probably the biggest problem with political debate right now is that the range is so narrow, but it is through this "Democrat vs. Republican" lense that all of our questions and all of our discussions are had. There are important issues, favored by large numbers of Americans, that never get an airing because they aren't "politically viable" to the two major parties.

Edit: And by the way, Hoover was a right winger without a doubt, regardless of what political expediancies he might have embraced. He was in favor of elite control by force and intimidation.

[Bat Boy]

Re: A little history lesson

Just like President Bush charges critics of the occupation of Iraq as "soft on terrorism", right wingers of 50 years ago labeled civil rights activists as "soft on communism".

Careful, sixthman. You seem to be suggesting that if criticism comes from "the right wing" (a/k/a conservatives) it is necessarily wrong or unfair. And, let's be honest, some of President Bush's critics can honestly be described as soft on terrorism -- read a few Christopher Hitchens articles about those on the Left who don't merely oppose the war on terror, they actively root for the other side. I think they qualify as soft on terrorism. Also, don't forget that lots of "civil rights activists" were in fact Communists, and it was neither unfair nor incorrect for Communists to be labeled as "soft on communism."

And please do not pretend that the objectionable acts were confined to the right. John and Bobby Kennedy were and remain liberal icons, and they were among the biggest abusers of governmental power. What do you think prompted Congress to enact the laws governing wiretapping in the first place, and what administrations (hint: Kennedy and Johnson) were the biggest abusers. While bashing conservatives as anti-civil rights (a/k/a racists) please do pause long enough to note liberal icons Albert Gore Sr and former KKK organizer Robert Byrd for their filibustering civil rights legislation (and also kindly note that it was the Republican support that overcame the opposition of southern Democrats and allowed passage). Everybody likes to claim that "their team" is the most ideologically pure, but you don't have to go back very far to point out embarrassing examples on both sides of the aisle.

Did I say anywhere this is a partisan issue? Why insert Democrats vs. Republicans? This is about the fight for a fairer society.

C'mon, don't pretend to be unaware on this. Using the term "right wing" is a code term commonly used in partisan rhetoric, just like I do when I say "lefty." It isn't a neutral term. Don't invoke it and then claim you meant something non-partisan. I am deliberately being partisan when I use partisan terms.

The heroes were the so called "leftists" in each party who had the smarts to first figure out what was right and wrong regarding race - and then had the courage to act on their convictions, despite considerable hardship.

Sorry, sixthman, I don't mean to be so disagreeable, but I disagree. You're again attributing the smarts to figure out right and wrong on race, and then the courage to act on it, to "leftist" heroes. This is horribly biased and historically wrong. Certainly you can find examples to support your statement, but not to support the suggestion that if one was not a leftist, they did not figure out right or wrong and did not have the courage to act. J. Edgar Hoover, for instance, is referred to as a right winger, yet was in favor of civil rights (despite his personal dislike and distrust of MLK).

In the cool hindsight of history, MLK has become a liberal icon, and people want to gloss over the fact that he had his own share of flaws and Hoover had his own reasons, not dishonorable reasons, for disliking him. The Kennedys and others are "leftist heroes," but they routinely violated what we now think of as inviolate civil rights, they were less aggressive on civil rights enforcement than generally given credit for. Conversely, lots of conservatives or right wingers are pro civil rights, pro environment, pro personal freedoms, yet are criticized because they are conservatives. Richard Nixon was a Republican, but no conservative, and arguably one of the most liberal presidents of the last century. Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican, but the "first progressive" president (before the word "progressive" got coopted by the Left so they didn't have to use the corrupted term "liberal").

Anyhow, sixth, no party or ideology has the corner on virtue, and sure as heck the lefties do not.

[3Ball]

Re: A little history lesson

Batboy, I'm still waiting to hear, what were MLKs flaws that honorably led Hoover to try to get him to committ suicide?

[sixthman]

Re: A little history lesson

An impossible amount to respond to, so I'll stick with history. I think most are now beginning to understand that someone could be patriotic and still think the war in Iraq was a fool's adventure. Wasn't as easy to sell a couple of years ago.

For his day Richard Nixon actually was fairly progressive in terms of civil rights. But he was not a liberal, not close to it. Depends on where you are writing from on the political spectrum I guess. NEW RULE: When Richard Nixon appears like a leftist to you, you know you are looking at things from the far, far right.

As for conservative activists who took strong stands on civil rights, marched in the south, gave money, their time, and their focus, here's a challenge: Name me one from the 1950's and 1960's in the civil rights movement who identified with his nation's conservatives. Your list is not going to be very long.

The election of 1948 and the Democratic party convention puts perspective on a lot of things you mention. The eastern and liberal Democrats refused to bow to the party segregationists and, as a result, the south walked at the 1948 convention. Harry Truman was forced to run for president against the Republican Thomas Dewey, and a southern Democrat, young Strom Thurmond, who, as you know, years later officially left the Democratic party and became a Republican. While old habits died hard, the Democratic party nationally became a more liberal party and began to take an interest in civil rights issues. The Republicans, on the other hand, began to cater more to states righters and segregationists like Strom Thermond, and to traditional economic and small government conservatives. In the 50's and 60's then, the former solid Democratic South gradually turned more Republican and the black vote, previously Republican, began to shift toward the Democrats.

I suspect one day in the not-to-distant future the South will again become competive for the Democrats and the solid black vote for the Democrats will begin to divide. And, it will be a good thing. Because the shift will occur for reasons other than race.

[Peck]

Re: A little history lesson

Name me one from the 1950's and 1960's in the civil rights movement who identified with his nation's conservatives

That's an unfair question because it implies that because most civil rights people were not conservative then by automatic assumption most conservatives would not have been for civil rights?

Can I just ask an honest question & I am not trying to cause a political uproar with this. Why do non-conservatives automatically assume that most conservatives are anti-civil rights & in truth closeted racist?

Really, I would like to know that.

Of course I think it's as wrong as I can be at times when I automatically lump all Democrats in with Ward "douchebag" Churchill. As my good friend RWB reminded me not all Democrats are liberal to the extreme.

Again I'm asking an honest question here.