Musik i DN-Kultur
DNs vilseförda läsare ( jag räknar mig ibland dit ) får i dag för en
gångs skull en artikel om nyskapande, folklig kultur. Om bröderna
Ashetons som bildade The Stooges i "Iggy and the Stooges". Skrivet av
Georg Cederskog - för mig okänd, men m näsa för väsentligheter.
Det som sägs i den här artikeln ansluter till vår tråd om vem som eg.
ÄGER eller ska ÄGA kulturen. Vem som tjänar pengar på den, resp. INTE
Om att ta från andra:
Scott Asheton såg Elvis på tv 1957 och spelade "Teddy Bear" fem timmar i
sträck, varje kväll.
Hans bror upptäckte Beatles, sålde motorcykeln och reste sommaren 1965 till
England med Dave Alexander på pilgrimsfärd - i jakt på gitarrhjältarna:
Rolling Stones Brian Jones, Yardbirds Jeff Beck.
Jimi Hendrix debutplatta gav bandet den psykedeliska svepning som omger dess
fysiskt hotfulla, så märkligt sårbara, musik. Jim Morrison lärde Pop att
sjunga som en crooner och att provocera sin publik. Från bluesikoner som
John Lee Hooker och Howlin' Wolf stal de testosteron och trumbeats.
- Men vi var oerhört influerade av frijazz också, John Coltrane, Archie
Shepp och framför allt Pharoah Sanders album "Upper Egypt & Lower Egypt".
Coltrane var vår religion.
Iggy and the Stooges blev ett band som kultförklarades sålde skivor i
miljontals o låg bakom ett nytt musikfenomen: punken. Gav det några
inkomster till musikerna? Om det sägs följande:
Vi har fortsatt att spela, men utan någon större framgång. Vi har släpat
vår utrustning upp och ner för östkusten, vinter, sommar, vår och höst för
några hundra dollar per kväll: "Här har du din lön efter alla omkostnader:
tjugo dollar." ( grimaserar ) Jag var tvungen att be fans att bjuda mig på
lunch och gick på skivbolagsfester för att äta gratisbufféer och få pengar
över till katternas mat.
- Mamma har alltid stöttat oss. När det varit knapert har hon hjälpt till
och jag har bott hos henne i omgångar för att jag inte hade råd med en egen
lägenhet. Men nu är hon stolt och har en klippbok. Hennes fotläkare på
servicehemmet frågade nyligen om hon var släkt med "de riktiga bröderna
Asheton". Han flippade ut när hon sade ja, det gillade hon ( skratt ).
Utgångspunkten i det här musikskapandet ? - från "Dirt":
"I been dirt, and I don't care
cause I'm burning inside,
I'm just a yearning inside
and I'm the fire o'life.
Oooh, I've been hurt
and I don't care
cause I'm burning inside,
I just a' dreaming this life.
And do you feel it when you touch me?
There's a fire,
there's a fire."
Hela artikeln på:
En länk till bilder, biografi mm http://www.iggypop.com/bio.php
Lögner, bestseller i USA
Ur inledningen till Al Frankens bok "Lögner och de lögnaktiga lögnarna som sprider dem" - boken utkom i början av december:
Gud utvalde mig att skriva den här boken.
Det enkla faktum att du läser det här bevisar inte bara Guds existens utan också Hans/Hennes/Dess godhet. Just det. Jag är inte säker på riktigt vilket kön Gud har. Men jag är säker på att Han/Hon/Det utsåg mig att skriva den här boken.
Det här är inte fråga om övermod. Jag säger det inte på något egotrippat sätt. Gud valde inte ut mig på grund av att jag är den störste författare som någonsin har levat. Den äran går till William Shakespeare, vars verk jag är flyktigt bekant med. Nej, jag råkade bara vara det rätta kärilet vid rätt tidpunkt. Om något i boken får dig att skratta så är det Guds skämt. Om något får dig att tänka efter så är det på grund av att Gud hade något bra att säga.
Anledningen till att jag vet att Gud utvalde mig är att Gud talade till mig personligen.
Gud inledde samtalet med att reda ut en förbryllande sak. Vissa av George W. Bushs vänner säger att Bush tror att Gud kallade honom till president i denna prövningens tid. Men Gud berättade för mig att Han/Hon/Det i själva verkat hade utvalt Al Gore genom att se till att Gore vann en majoritet av rösterna och, som Gud trodde, elektorskollegiet. "DET HAR FUNGERAT FÖR ALLA ANDRA", sade Gud.
"Vad sägs om Tilden?" frågade jag med hänsyftning på fiaskot år 1875.
"TYST!" fräste Gud. Gud var arg.
Gud sade att efter den 11:e september hade George W. Bush förslösat ett unikt ögonblick av nationell enighet. Att Bush i stället för att samla landet kring ett program för gemensam målmedvetenhet och uppoffring cyniskt hade utnyttjat tragedin till att stärka sin politiska makt och främja ett program som friade till hans maktbas och tillgodosåg hans finansiärer i bolagsvärlden. Gud sade till mig att Bush hade förslösat ett budgetöverskott på 4,6 biljoner dollar och fortsätter att dra ner oss i underskott så långt framåt som Gud kan se. Och att Bush också förslösade ett annat överskott. Det överskott av goodwill från resten av världen som han hade övertagit efter Bill Clinton.
Och det gjorde Gud förbannad.
Han/Hon/Det hade rätt. Men det lät som mycket arbete.
"Hör du, Gud, jag känner mig verkligen smickrad, men jag tror att du har fått tag i fel kille. En bok av det slaget du pratar om skulle kräva månaders forskningsarbete."
Och Gud sade: "VARDE GOOGLE. OCH VARDE LEXISNEXIS."
"Mycket lustigt, Gud. Jag använder Google ständigt och jämnt."
"JA, JAG VET", sade Gud. "FÖR ATT HITTA BILDER PÅ SEXIGA ASIATISKA TONÅRSTJEJER."
"Du tänker nog på min son Joe."
"AL? JAG ÄR ALLVETANDE."
"Jajaja." Jag bytte samtalsämne. "Det är bara det att jag inte kan skriva den här boken ensam."
"ÖVERLÅT DEN SAKEN ÅT MIG", dånade Gud.
Och det var då som de ringde mig från Harvard-universitetet.
Jag hade Nexis, jag hade Google, jag hade mitt anslag från Harvard och jag hade mina fjorton forskningsassistenter som grävde dygnet runt efter fakta. Jag satte mig ner för att skriva. Total idétorka.
Så jag föll på knä och bad om vägledning. "Gud, hur ska jag bäst utföra Din vilja genom denna bok? Vilka, käre/kära Gud, är en sådan bok avsedd för? Och kan du föreslå en bra titel?"
Gud svarade: "KÄNNER DU TILL DE DÄR USLA BÖCKERNA AV ANN COULTER OCH BERNIE GOLDBERG?"
"Bästsäljarna som hävdar att medierna är liberalt vinklade?"
"RENA SKITPRATET", sade Gud. "BÖRJA MED ATT ANGRIPA DEM. HAN ÄR SÅ UPPENBART EN FÖRE DETTA ANSTÄLLD SOM VILL GE IGEN, OCH HON BARA LJUGER. I FÖRBIGÅENDE SAGT ÄR HON INTE RIKTIGT KLOK."
"Det är ganska klart."
"SÅ GE DIG PÅ DEM, OCH PÅ HELA MYTEN OM DE LIBERALT VINKLADE MEDIERNA. SÄRSKILT FOX NEWS."
"Fint, Gud, jag skriver ner det här."
"ANVÄND DEM SEDAN SOM UTGÅNGSPUNKT FÖR ATT GÖRA UPP MED BUSH. DU VET, JÄTTELIKA SKATTESÄNKNINGAR FÖR DE RIKA, GALOPPERANDE ARBETSLÖSHET, HUR HAN STRUNTAR I ALLA UTOM SINA VÄNNER I FÖRETAGSVÄRLDEN, HANS KRIG MOT MILJÖN, HUR HAN GÖR RESTEN AV VÄRLDEN FÖRBANNAD, HELA KÖRET. DÄR HAR DU DIN BOK."
"Uppfattat. En sak till. Bokens titel."
"VAD SÄGS OM DE SOM BÄRA FALSKT VITTNESBÖRD OCH DET FALSKA VITTNESBÖRD DE BÄRA?"
"Hm. Jag, öh, jag ska fila på det lite."
Ur Al Frankens inledning till LÖGN
A Saddam Chronology
by Stephen R. Shalom
December 15, 2003
Saddam Hussein is one of the world's great monsters. Nothing would be more welcome than to have him put on trial, a trial which could offer Iraqis and the world an honest accounting of his many crimes. However, as so often happens, when a trial is organized by those who are themselves guilty of serious crimes, truth is not the goal. Instead the historical record is falsified to make the one monster seem uniquely blameworthy and the ones running the show above criticism.
We saw this pattern in the Tokyo trials following World War II, where the crimes of Japanese officials were documented in gruesome detail (except for the biological warfare programs, which Washington wanted to use for itself and except for the involvement of the emperor, who was to serve U.S. purposes during the occupation), while the crimes of the victors, such as the horrific fire-bombing raids and the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were disregarded. Likewise, Panamanian ruler Manual Noriega was a thug who certainly belonged in the dock. But when the U.S. military invaded Panama in violation of international law and seized him for trial in the United States, there was no intention by the kidnappers that the trial be a forum for revealing the long-time ties between Noriega and the U.S. government, and particularly between Noriega and former CIA director George H. W. Bush.
It is a matter of principle in Washington that Americans not be held to the same international standards as others. Thus, the U.S. refuses to endorse the International Criminal Court and demands that its allies give up their right to invoke the jurisdiction of the court when U.S. citizens are involved. But those of us who truly care about justice ought to demand that Saddam Hussein be tried before a court that is in no way subject to U.S. control or manipulation. Only in that way can the real truth come out.
Already, however, much of the media is falling into line in framing the crimes of Saddam Hussein. For example, the Washington Post website offered a summary of "Events in the Life of Saddam Hussein" from the Associated Press. But the chronology was seriously incomplete. Below is that chronology, corrected to include -- indented and in brackets -- some of the most serious omissions.
A glance at the life of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein:
April 28, 1937 -- Born in village near desert town of Tikrit, north of Baghdad.
1957 -- Joins underground Baath Socialist Party.
1958 -- Arrested for killing his brother-in-law, a Communist, spends six months in prison.
Oct. 7, 1959 -- On Baath assassination team that ambushes Iraqi strongman Gen. Abdel-Karim Kassem in Baghdad, wounding him. Saddam, wounded in leg, flees to Syria then Egypt.
[This was not the only attempt to assassinate Kassem. In April 1960, the CIA approved using a poisoned handkerchief to kill Kassem. The "handkerchief was duly dispatched to Kassem, but whether or not it ever reached him, it certainly did not kill him." (Thomas Powers, The Man Who Kept the Secrets: Richard Helms and the CIA, New York: Knopf, 1979, p. 130.)]
Feb. 8, 1963 -- Returns from Egypt after Baath takes part in coup that overthrows and kills Kassem. Baath ousted by military in November.
[The coup was backed by the CIA.
"As its instrument the C.I.A. had chosen the authoritarian and anti-Communist Baath Party, in 1963 still a relatively small political faction influential in the Iraqi Army. According to the former Baathist leader Hani Fkaiki, among party members colluding with the C.I.A. in 1962 and 1963 was Saddam Hussein....
"According to Western scholars, as well as Iraqi refugees and a British human rights organization, the 1963 coup was accompanied by a bloodbath. Using lists of suspected Communists and other leftists provided by the C.I.A., the Baathists systematically murdered untold numbers of Iraq's educated elite -- killings in which Saddam Hussein himself is said to have participated. No one knows the exact toll, but accounts agree that the victims included hundreds of doctors, teachers, technicians, lawyers and other professionals as well as military and political figures." (Roger Morris, "A Tyrant 40 Years in the Making," New York Times, March 14, 2003, p. A29.)]
July 17, 1968 -- Baathists and army officers overthrow regime.
["Again, this coup, amid more factional violence, came with C.I.A. backing. Serving on the staff of the National Security Council under Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon in the late 1960's, I often heard C.I.A. officers -- including Archibald Roosevelt, grandson of Theodore Roosevelt and a ranking C.I.A. official for the Near East and Africa at the time -- speak openly about their close relations with the Iraqi Baathists." (Morris, "A Tyrant 40 Years in the Making," p. A29.)]
July 30, 1968 -- Takes charge of internal security after Baath ousts erstwhile allies and authority passes to Revolutionary Command Council under Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, Saddam's cousin.
[From 1973-75, the United States, Iran, and Israel supported a Kurdish insurgency in Iraq. Documents examined by the U.S. House Select Committee on Intelligence "clearly show that the President, Dr. Kissinger and the [Shah] hoped that our clients [the Kurds] would not prevail. They preferred instead that the insurgents simply continue a level of hostilities sufficient to sap [Iraqi] resourcesY. This policy was not imparted to our clients, who were encouraged to continue fighting. Even in the context of covert action, ours was a cynical enterprise." Then, in 1975, the Shah and Saddam Hussein of Iraq signed an agreement giving Iran territorial concessions in return for Iran's closing its border to Kurdish guerrillas. Teheran and Washington promptly cut off their aid to the Kurds and, while Iraq massacred the rebels, the United States refused them asylum. Kissinger justified this U.S. policy in closed testimony: "covert action should not be confused with missionary work." (U.S. House of Representatives, Select Committee on Intelligence, 19 Jan. 1976 [Pike Report] in Village Voice, 16 Feb. 1976, pp. 85, 87n465, 88n471. The Pike Report attributes the last quote only to a "senior official"; William Safire, Safire's Washington, New York: Times Books, 1980, p. 333, identifies the official as Kissinger.)]
July 16, 1979 -- Takes over as president from al-Bakr, launches massive purge of Baath.
[In the late 1970s, Saddam also purged the Iraqi Communist Party and other oppositionists. (Marion Farouk-Sluglett and Peter Sluglett, Iraq Since 1958, London: I. B. Tauris, 1990, pp. 182-87) "We see no fundamental incompatibility of interests between the United States and Iraq," declared U.S. National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in April 1980. (Quoted in Barry Rubin, "The United States and Iraq: From Appeasement to War," in Iraq's Road to War, ed. Amatzia Baram and Barry Rubin, New York: St. Martin's 1993, p. 256.)]
Sept. 22, 1980 -- Sends forces into Iran; war last eight years.
[When Iraq invaded Iran, the United Nations Security Council waited four days before holding a meeting. On September 28, it passed Resolution 479 calling for an end to the fighting, but which significantly did not condemn (nor even mention) the Iraqi aggression and did not demand a return to internationally recognized boundaries. As Ralph King, who has studied the UN response in detail, concluded, "The Council more or less deliberately ignored Iraq's actions in September 1980." The U.S. delegate noted that Iran, which had itself violated Security Council resolutions on the U.S. embassy hostages, could hardly complain about the Council's lackluster response. (R.P.H. King, "The United Nations and the Iran‑Iraq War, 1980‑1986," in The United Nations and the Iran‑Iraq War, ed. Brian Urquhart and Gary Sick, New York: Ford Foundation, August 1987.)
Despite the fact that Iraq had been the aggressor in this war and that Iraq was the first to use chemical weapons, the first to launch air attacks on cities, and the initiator of the tanker war, the United States tilted toward Iraq. The U.S. removed Iraq from its list of terrorist states in 1982, sent Donald Rumsfeld to Baghdad as Reagan's envoy to meet with Saddam Hussein in 1983 and 1984 to discuss economic cooperation, re-established diplomatic relations in November 1984, made available extensive loans and subsidies, provided intelligence information, encouraged its allies to arm Iraq, and engaged in military actions in the Persian Gulf against Iran. The United States also provided dual-use equipment that it knew Iraq was using for military purposes. (See Joyce Battle, ed., "Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984," National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 82, Feb. 25, 2003, http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/.)]
March 28, 1988 -- Uses chemical weapons against Kurdish town of Halabja, killing estimated 5,000 civilians.
[From Iraq's first use of chemical weapons in 1983, the U.S. took a very restrained view. When the evidence of Iraqi use of these weapons could no longer be denied, the U.S. issued a mild condemnation, but made clear that this would have no effect on commercial or diplomatic relations between the United States and Iraq. Iran asked the Security Council to condemn Iraq's chemical weapons use, but the U.S. delegate to the U.N. was instructed to try to prevent a resolution from coming to a vote, or else to abstain. An Iraqi official told the U.S. that Iraq strongly preferred a Security Council presidential statement to a resolution and did not want any specific country identified as responsible for chemical weapons use. On March 30, 1984, the Security Council issued a presidential statement condemning the use of chemical weapons, without naming Iraq as the offending party. (Battle, http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/.)
At the same time that the U.S. government had knowledge of that the Iraqi military was using chemical weapons, it was providing intelligence and planning assistance to the Iraqi armed forces. (Patrick Tyler, "Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq In War Despite Use Of Gas," New York Times, Aug. 18, 2002, p. 1.)
When Iraq used chemical weapons in March 1988 against Halabja, there was no condemnation from Washington. (Dilip Hiro, "When US turned a blind eye to poison gas," The Observer, September 1, 2002, p. 17.) "In September 1988, the House of Representatives voted 388 to 16 in favor of economic sanctions against Iraq, but the White House succeeded in having the Senate water down the proposal. In exchange for Export-Import Bank credits, Iraq merely had to promise not to use chemical weapons again, with agricultural credits exempted even from this limited requirement." (Rubin, "The United States and Iraq: From Appeasement to War," p. 261.)]
Aug. 2, 1990 -- Invades Kuwait.
[The chronology omits one of Saddam Hussein's most egregious atrocities, his Anfal campaign against the Kurds from 1987-89, in which at least 50,000 and possibly 100,000 Kurds were systematically slaughtered. (Middle East Watch, Genocide in Iraq: The Anfal Campaign Against the Kurds, New York: Human Rights Watch, 1993.)
The response of the new Bush administration was to increase Iraq's commodity credits from half a billion to a billion dollars, making it the second largest user of the credit program in the world. As late as April 1990, the administration was opposing sanctions against Iraq ("They would hurt U.S. exporters and worsen our trade deficit," said the State Department). (Guy Gugliotta, Charles R. Babcock, and Benjamin Weiser, "At War, Iraq Courted U.S. Into Economic Embrace," Washington Post, Sept. 16, 1990, p. A1.) The administration also blocked efforts to cut back high-tech exports to Iraq with obvious military applications. (Douglas Frantz and Murray Waas, "Bush insisted on aiding Iraq until war's onset," Chicago Sun-Times, Feb. 23, 1992, p. 17.) And the United States was providing intelligence data to Iraq until three months before the invasion. (Murray Waas, Douglas Frantz, "U.S. shared intelligence with Iraq until 3 months before invasion of Kuwait," Houston Chronicle, March 10, 1992, p. A6.)]
Jan. 17, 1991 -- Attacked by U.S.-led coalition; Kuwait liberated in a month.
[As part of the U.S.-led attack, the civilian infrastructure of Iraq was intentionally targeted (Barton Gellman, "Allied Air War Struck Broadly in Iraq; Officials Acknowledge Strategy Went Beyond Purely Military Targets," Washington Post, 23 June 1991, p. A1; Thomas J. Nagy, "The Secret Behind the Sanctions," Progressive, Sept. 2001), which together with more than a decade of economic sanctions would lead to hundreds of thousands of excess deaths. (See Richard Garfield, "Morbidity and Mortality Among Iraqi Children From 1990 through 1998: Assessing the Impact of the Gulf War and Economic Sanctions," March 1999, http://www.fourthfreedom.org/php/t-si-index.php?hinc=garf-index.hinc.)]
March, 1991 -- Crushes Shiite revolt in south and Kurd revolt in north.
[After urging Iraqis to rise up against Saddam Hussein, the U.S. denied the rebels access to captured Iraqi weapons and allowed Saddam Hussein to use his helicopters to slaughter the insurgents as U.S. aircraft circled overhead. (Andrew Cockburn and Patrick Cockburn, Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein, New York: Harperperennial. 1999, chap. 1)]
April 17, 1991 -- Complying with U.N. Resolution 687, starts providing information on weapons of mass destruction, but accused of cheating.
Feb. 20, 1996 -- Orders killing of two sons-in-law who in 1995 defected to Jordan and had just returned to Baghdad after receiving guarantees of safety.
Dec. 16, 1998 -- Weapons inspectors withdrawn from Iraq. Hours later, four days of U.S.-British air and missile strikes begin as punishment for lack of cooperation.
[The bombing was conducted without Security Council approval and without consultations with allies. The withdrawal of the inspectors was ordered by Richard Butler, the head of UNSCOM. "France was also annoyed with Washington for getting Mr. Butler to pull out his inspectors from Iraq without discussion with the Security Council." U.S. Secretary of State "Albright did not speak with Secretary General Kofi Annan at the United Nations, officials said. Mr. Annan issued a personal statement, calling this 'a sad day' for the world and 'me personally,' because of his failure to avert the use of force." (Steven Erlanger, "U.S. Decision to Act Fast, and Then Search for Support, Angers Some Allies," New York Times, Dec. 17, 1998, p. A14.)]
Nov. 8, 2002 -- Threatened with "serious consequences" if he does not disarm in U.N. Security Council resolution.
Nov. 27, 2002 -- Allows U.N. experts to begin work in Iraq for first time since 1998.
Dec. 7, 2002 -- Delivers to United Nations declaration denying Iraq has weapons of mass destruction; later, United States says declaration is untruthful and United Nations says it is incomplete.
March 1, 2003 -- United Arab Emirates, at an Arab League summit, becomes first Arab nation to propose publicly that Saddam step down.
March 7 -- United States, Britain and Spain propose ordering Saddam to give up banned weapons by March 17 or face war; other nations led by France on polarized U.N. Security Council oppose any new resolution that would authorize military action.
March 17 -- United States, Britain and Spain declare time for diplomacy over, withdraw proposed resolution. President Bush gives Saddam 48 hours to leave Iraq.
[Actually, U.S. officials made clear that U.S. troops would enter Iraq whether or not Saddam and his sons left the country. (Michael R. Gordon, "Allies Will Move In, Even if Saddam Hussein Moves Out," New York Times, March 18, 2003, p. A16.)]
March 18 -- Iraq's leadership rejects Bush's ultimatum.
["On the eve of war, Iraq publicly offered unlimited access for American and British weapons hunters." (David Rennie, "Saddam 'offered Bush a huge oil deal to avert war'," Daily Telegraph [London], Nov. 7, 2003, p. 17) And privately Iraq went well beyond this. In several back-channel contacts with U.S. officials, Iraq offered the U.S. "direct U.S. involvement on the ground in disarming Iraq," oil concessions, the turn-over of a wanted terrorist, cooperation on the Israeli-Palestinian peace-process, and even internationally-supervised elections within two years. (James Risen, "Iraq Said to Have Tried to Reach Last-Minute Deal to Avert War," New York Times, Nov. 6, 2003, p. A1) One doesn't know where these offers may have led, since they were rejected by the U.S.: "A US intelligence source insisted that the decision not to negotiate came from the White House, which was demanding complete surrender. According to an Arab source, [a U.S. intermediary] sent a Saudi official a set of requirements he believed Iraq would have to fulfill. Those demands included Saddam's abdication and departure, first to a US military base for interrogation and then into supervised exile, a surrender of Iraqi troops, and the admission that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. (Julian Borger, Brian Whitaker, and Vikram Dodd "Saddam's desperate offers to stave off war," Guardian, Nov. 7, 2003, p. 3.)]
March 20 -- U.S. forces open war with military strike on Dora Farms, a target south of Baghdad where Saddam and his sons are said to be. Saddam appears on Iraqi television later in the day.
April 4 -- Iraqi television shows video of Saddam walking a Baghdad street.
April 7 -- U.S. warplanes bomb a section of the Mansour district in Baghdad where Saddam and his sons were said to be meeting.
April 9 -- Jubilant crowds greet U.S. troops in Baghdad, go on looting rampages, topple 40-foot statue of Saddam.
July 22 -- Saddam's sons, Qusai and Odai, killed in gunbattle with U.S. troops. American forces then raid the northern city of Mosul and later say they missed Saddam "by a matter of hours."
July 27 -- U.S. troops raid three farms in Tikrit. Again, officials later say they missed Saddam by 24 hours.
July 31 -- Two of Saddam's daughters, Raghad and Rana, and their nine children are given asylum by Jordan's King Abdullah II.
[That they would need asylum follows from the U.S. policy of detaining family members of those they are seeking, in violation of elementary standards of justice. ("The arrest of close relatives of fugitive regime members has been used by US forces in the past both as a way to gather intelligence - through interrogation - and to put emotional pressure on the hunted men to surrender." Colin Nickerson, "US Troops Detain Wife, Daughter Of Key Hussein Aide Ex-Deputy Suspected Of Plotting Attacks In Iraqi Insurgency," Boston Globe, Nov. 27, 2003, p. A40.)]
Sept. 5 -- Maj. Gen. Ray Odierno of the 4th Infantry Division says his troops have captured several of Saddam's former bodyguards in the Tikrit area in the past month and may be closing in on the deposed Iraqi dictator.
Nov. 16 -- The last of nine tapes attributed to Saddam Hussein since he was removed from power is released. It tells Iraqis to step up their resistance to the U.S.-led occupation, saying the United States and its allies misjudged the difficulty of occupying Iraq.
[It didn't take a genius to note that "the United States and its allies misjudged the difficulty of occupying Iraq."]
Dec. 13 -- Saddam is captured at 8:30 p.m. in the town of Adwar, 10 miles south of Tikrit. He is hiding in a specially prepared "spider hole."
Robert Fisk: om Israel-lobbyn
A Strange Kind of Freedom
09 July 2002
We all know about the perils of Islamic fanaticism. But, says Robert Fisk, the biggest threat to liberty in the US may come from other kinds of fundamentalism: Jewish and Christian.
Inside the First Congregational Church of Berkeley, the Californian audience had been struck silent. Dennis Bernstein, the Jewish host of KPFA Radio's Flashpoint current affairs programme, was reading some recent e-mails that he had received from Israel's supporters in America. Each one left the people in the church -- Muslims, Jews, Christians -- in a state of shock. "You mother-fucking-asshole-self-hating Jewish piece of shit. Hitler killed the wrong Jews. He should have killed your parents, so a piece of Jewish shit like you would not have been born. God willing, Arab terrorists will cut you to pieces Daniel Pearl-style, AMEN!!!"
Bernstein's sin was to have covered the story of Israel's invasion of Jenin in April and to have interviewed journalists who investigated the killings that took place there -- including Phil Reeves and Justin Huggler of The Independent -- for his Flashpoint programme. Bernstein's grandfather was a revered Orthodox Rabbi of international prominence but neither his family history nor his origins spared him. "Read this and weep, you mother-fucker self-hating Jew boy!!!" another e-mail told Bernstein. "God willing a Palestinian will murder you, rape your wife and slash your kids' throats." Yet another: "I hope that you, Barbara Lubin and all other Jewish Marxist Communist traitors anti-American cop haters will die a violent and cruel death just like the victims of suicide bombers in Israel." Lubin is also Jewish, the executive director of the Middle East Children's Alliance, a one-time committed Zionist but now one of Israel's fiercest critics. Her e-mails are even worse.
Indeed, you have to come to America to realise just how brave this small but vocal Jewish community is. Bernstein is the first to acknowledge that a combination of Israeli lobbyists and conservative Christian fundamentalists have in effect censored all free discussion of Israel and the Middle East out of the public domain in the US. "Everyone else is terrified," Bernstein says. "The only ones who begin to open their mouths are the Jews in this country. You know, as a kid, I sent money to plant trees in Israel. But now we are horrified by a government representing a country that we grew up loving and cherishing. Israel's defenders have a special vengeance for Jews who don't fall in line behind Sharon's scorched-earth policy because they give the lie to the charge that Israel's critics are simply anti-Semite."
Adam Shapiro is among those who have paid a price for their beliefs. He is a Jew engaged to an American-born Palestinian, a volunteer with the International Solidarity Movement who was trapped in Yasser Arafat's headquarters in the spring while administering medical aid. After telling CNN that the Sharon government was acting like "terrorists" while receiving $3bn a year in US military aid, Shapiro and his family were savaged in the New York Post. The paper slandered Shapiro as the "Jewish Taliban" and demeaned his family as "traitors". Israeli supporters publicised his family's address and his parents were forced to flee their Brooklyn home and seek police protection. Shapiro's father, a New York public high-school teacher and a part-time Yeshiva (Jewish day school) teacher, was fired from his job. His brother receives regular death threats.
Israel's supporters have no qualms about their alliance with the Christian right. Indeed, the fundamentalists can campaign on their own in Israel's favour, as I discovered for myself at Stanford recently when I was about to give a lecture on the media and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, part of a series of talks arranged largely by Jewish Americans. A right-wing Christian "Free Republic" outfit posted my name on its website, and described me as a "PLO butt-kisser" and asked its supporters to "freep" my lecture. A few demonstrators turned up outside the First United Methodist Church in Sacramento where I was to speak, waving American and Israeli flags. "Jew haters!" they screamed at the organisers, a dark irony since these were non-Jews shrieking their abuse at Jews.
They were also handing out crudely printed flyers. "Nothing to worry about, Bob," one of my Jewish hosts remarked. "They can't even spell your name right." True. But also false. "Stop the Lies!" the leaflet read. "There was no massacre in Jenin. Fiske [sic] is paid big bucks to spin [lie] for the Arabs..." But the real lie was in that last sentence. I never take any payment for lectures -- so that no one can ever claim that I'm paid to give the views of others. But the truth didn't matter to these people. Nor did the content of my talk -- which began, by chance, with the words "There was no massacre" -- in which I described Arafat as a "corrupt, vain little despot" and suicide bombings as "a fearful, evil weapon". None of this was relevant. The aim was to shut me up.
Dennis Bernstein sums it up quite simply: "Any US journalist, columnist, editor, college professor, student-activist, public official or clergy member who dares to speak critically of Israel or accurately report the brutalities of its illegal occupation will be vilified as an anti-Semite."
In fact, no sooner had Bernstein made these remarks than pro-Israeli groups initiated an extraordinary campaign against some of the most pro-Israeli newspapers in America, all claiming that The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle were biased in their coverage of the Middle-East conflict. Just how The New York Times -- which boasts William Safire and Charles Krauthammer, those giants of pro-Israeli bias, among its writers -- could be anti-Israeli is difficult to see, although it is just possible that, amid its reports on Israel's destruction in the West Bank and Gaza, some mildly critical comments found their way into print. The New York Times, for example, did report that Israeli soldiers used civilians as human shields -- though only in the very last paragraph of a dispatch from Jenin.
None the less, the campaign of boycotts and e-mails got under way. More than 1,000 readers suspended their subscriptions to the Los Angeles Times, while a blizzard of e-mails told pro-Israeli readers to cancel their subscription to The New York Times for a day. On the East Coast, at least one local radio station has lost $1m from a Jewish philanthropist while other stations attempting to cover the Middle East with some degree of fairness are said to have lost even more. When the San Francisco Chronicle published a four-page guide to the conflict, its editors had to meet a 14-member delegation of local Jewish groups to discuss their grievances.
According to Michael Futterman, who chairs the Middle East strategy committee of 80 Bay Area synagogues, Jewish anger hit "boiling point" when the Chronicle failed to cover a pro-Israeli rally in San Francisco. Needless to say, the Chronicle's "Readers' Representative", Dick Rogers, published a grovelling, self-flagellating apology. "The paper didn't have a word on the pro-Israel rally," he wrote. "This wasn't fair and balanced coverage." Another objection came from a Jewish reader who objected to the word "terror" being placed within inverted commas in a Chronicle headline that read "Sharon says 'terror' justifies assault". The reader's point? The Chronicle's reporting "harmonises well with Palestinian propaganda, which tries to divert attention from the terrorist campaign against Israel (which enjoys almost unanimous support among Palestinians, all the way from Yasser Arafat to the 10-year-old who dreams of blowing himself up one day) and instead describes Israel's military moves as groundless, evil bullying tactics."
And so it goes on. On a radio show with me in Berkeley, the Chronicle's foreign editor, Andrew Ross, tried to laugh off the influence of the pro-Israeli lobby -- "the famous lobby", he called it with that deference that is half way between acknowledgement and fear -- but the Israeli Consul General Yossi Amrani had no hesitation in campaigning against the Chronicle, describing a paper largely docile in its reporting of the Middle East as "a professionally and politically biased, pro-Palestinian newspaper".
The Chronicle's four-page pull-out on the Middle East was, in fact, a soft sell. Its headline -- "The Current Strife Between The Israelis And The Palestinians Is A Battle For Control Of Land" -- missed the obvious point: that one of the two groups that were "battling for control of the land" -- the Palestinians -- had been occupied by Israel for 35 years.
The most astonishing -- and least covered -- story is in fact the alliance of Israeli lobbyists and Christian Zionist fundamentalists, a coalition that began in 1978 with the publication of a Likud plan to encourage fundamentalist churches to give their support to Israel. By 1980, there was an "International Christian Embassy" in Jerusalem; and in 1985, a Christian Zionist lobby emerged at a "National Prayer Breakfast for Israel" whose principal speaker was Benjamin Netanyahu, who was to become Israeli prime minister. "A sense of history, poetry and morality imbued the Christian Zionists who, more than a century ago, began to write, plan and organise for Israel's restoration," Netanyahu told his audience. The so-called National Unity Coalition for Israel became a lobbying arm of Christian Zionism with contacts in Congress and neo-conservative think-tanks in Washington.
In May this year, the Israeli embassy in Washington, no less, arranged a prayer breakfast for Christian Zionists. Present were Alonzo Short, a member of the board of "Promise Keepers", and Michael Little who is president of the "Christian Broadcasting Network". Event hosts were listed as including those dour old Christian conservatives Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who once financed a rogue television station in southern Lebanon which threatened Muslim villagers and broadcast tirades by Major Saad Haddad, Israel's stooge militia leader in Lebanon. In Tennessee, Jewish officials invited hundreds of Christians to join Jewish crowds at a pro-Israel solidarity rally in Memphis.
On the face of it, this coalition seems natural. The Jewish Anti-Defamation League felt able to run an ad that included an article by a former Christian coalition executive director Ralph Reed, headlined "We People of Faith Stand Firmly With Israel". Christians, Reed claimed, supported Israel because of "their humanitarian impulse to help and protect Jews, a shared strategic interest in democracy in the Middle East and a spiritual connection to Israel".
But, of course, a fundamental problem -- fundamental in every sense of the word -- lies behind this strange partnership. As Uri Avnery, the leader of Gush Shalom, the most courageous Israeli peace group, pointed out in a typically ferocious essay last month, there is a darker side to the alliance. "According to its [Christian Zionist] theological beliefs, the Jews must congregate in Palestine and establish a Jewish state on all its territory" -- an idea that would obviously appeal to Ariel Sharon -- "so as to make the Second Coming of Jesus Christ possible." But here comes the bad bit. As Avnery says, "the evangelists don't like to dwell openly on what comes next: before the coming [of the Messiah], the Jews must convert to Christianity. Those who don't will perish in a gigantic holocaust in the battle of Armageddon. This is basically an anti-Semitic teaching, but who cares, so long as they support Israel?"
The power of the Israeli lobby in the United States is debated far more freely in the Israeli press than in American newspapers or on US tele- vision. There is, of course, a fine and dangerous line between justified investigation -- and condemnation -- of the lobby's power, and the racist Arab claim that a small cabal of Zionists run the world. Those in America who share the latter view include a deeply unpleasant organisation just along the coast from San Francisco at Newport Beach known as the "Institute for Historical Research". These are the Holocaust deniers whose annual conference last month included a lecture on "death sentences imposed by German authorities against German soldiers... for killing or even mistreating Jews". Too much of this and you'd have to join the American Israel Public Affairs Committee -- AIPAC -- to restore your sanity. But the Israeli lobby is powerful. In fact, its influence over the US Congress and Senate calls into question the degree to which the American legislature has been corrupted by lobby groups. It is to an Israeli voice -- Avnery again -- that Americans have to turn to hear just how mighty the lobby has become. "Its electoral and financial power casts a long shadow over both houses of the Congress," Avnery writes. "Hundreds of Senators and Congressmen were elected with the help of Jewish contributions. Resistance to the directives of the Jewish lobby is political suicide. If the AIPAC were to table a resolution abolishing the Ten Commandments, 80 Senators and 300 Congressmen would sign it at once. This lobby frightens the media, too, and assures their adherence to Israel."
Avnery could have looked no further than the Democratic primary in Alabama last month for proof of his assertion. Earl Hilliard, the five-term incumbent, had committed the one mortal sin of any American politician: he had expressed sympathy for the cause of the Palestinians. He had also visited Libya several years ago. Hilliard's opponent, Artur Davis, turned into an outspoken supporter of Israel and raised large amounts of money from the Jewish community, both in Alabama and nationwide. The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz noted that among the names of the first list of contributors to Davis's campaign funds were "10 Cohens from New York and New Jersey, but before one gets to the Cohens, there were Abrams, Ackerman, Adler, Amir, Asher, Baruch, Basok, Berger, Berman, Bergman, Bernstein and Blumenthal. All from the East Coast, Chicago and Los Angeles. It's highly unlikely any of them have ever visited Alabama..." The Jewish newspaper Forward -- essential reading for any serious understanding of the American Jewish community -- quoted a Jewish political activist following the race: "Hilliard has been a problem in his votes and with guys like that, when there's any conceivable primary challenge, you take your shot." Hilliard, of course, lost to Davis, whose campaign funds reached $781,000.
The AIPAC concentrates on Congress while the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organisations (CPMAJO), made up of the heads of 51 Jewish organisations, concentrates on the executive branch of the US government. Every congressman knows the names of those critics of Israel who have been undone by the lobby. Take Senator J William Fulbright, whose 1963 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee detailed how five million tax-deductable dollars from philanthropic Americans had been sent to Israel and then recycled back to the US for distribution to organisations seeking to influence public opinion in favour of Israel; this cost him the chance of being Secretary of State. He was defeated in the 1974 Democratic primary after pro-Israeli money poured into the campaign funds of his rival, Governor Dale Bumpers, following a statement by the AIPAC that Fulbright was "consistently unkind to Israel and our supporters in this country". Paul Findley, who spent 22 years as a Republican congressman from Illinois, found his political career destroyed after he had campaigned against the Israeli lobby -- although, ironically, his book on the subject, They Dare to Speak Out was nine weeks on The Washington Post bestseller list, suggesting that quite a number of Americans want to know why their congressmen are so pro-Israeli.
Just two months ago, the US House of Representatives voted 352 to 21 to express its unqualified support for Israel. The Senate voted 94 to two for the same motion. Even as they voted, Ariel Sharon's army was continuing its destructive invasion of the West Bank. "I do not recall any member of Congress asking me if I was in favour of patting Israel on the back..." James Abu Rizk, an Arab-American of Lebanese origin, told the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee afterwards. "No one else, no average American, has been asked either. But that is the state of American politics today... The votes and bows have nothing to do with the legislators' love for Israel. They have everything to do with the money that is fed into their campaigns by members of the Israeli lobby. My estimate is that $6bn flows from the American Treasury to Israel each year." Within days, 42 US governors turned up in Sacramento to sign declarations supporting Israel. California governor Gray Davis and New York governor George Pataki -- California has the largest Jewish population of any state except New York -- arranged the meeting.
Sometimes the support of Israel's loyalists in Congress turns into farce. Tom Delay -- reacting to CNN founder Ted Turner's criticism of Israel -- went so far out of his way to justify Israeli occupation of the West Bank that he blurted out on MSNBC television that the Palestinians "should become citizens" of Israel, an idea unlikely to commend itself to his friend Ariel Sharon. Texas Republican Richard Armey went the other way. "I'm content to have Israel grab the entire West Bank. I happen to believe the Palestinians should leave... to have those people who have been aggressors against Israel retired to some other area." Do the people of Texas know that their representative is supporting "ethnic cleansing" in the Middle East? Or are they silent because they prefer not to speak out?
Censorship takes many forms. When Ishai Sagi and Ram Rahat-Goodman, two Israeli reserve soldiers who refused to serve in the West Bank or Gaza, were scheduled to debate their decision at Sacramento's Congregation B'nai Israel in May, their appearance was cancelled. Steve Meinreith, who is chairman of the Israel Affairs Committee at B'nai Israel, remarked bleakly that "intimidation on the part of certain sectors of the community has deprived the entire community of hearing a point of view that is being widely debated in Israel. Some people feel it's too dangerous..."
Does President Bush? His long-awaited Middle-East speech was Israeli policy from start to finish. A group of Jewish leaders, including Elie Wiesel and Alan Dershowitz -- who said recently that the idea of executing the families of Palestinian suicide bombers was a legitimate if flawed attempt at finding a balance between preventing terrorism and preserving democracy -- and the AIPAC and CPMAJO heads all sent clear word to the President that no pressure should be put on Israel. Wiesel -- whose courage permeates his books on the Holocaust but who lamentably failed to condemn the massacre of Palestinian refugees in Beirut in 1982 at the hands of Israel's Lebanese allies, said he felt "sadness", but his sadness was "with Israel, not against Israel" because "after all the Israeli soldiers did not kill" -- took out a full page in The New York Times. In this, he urged Bush to "please remember that Ariel Sharon, a military man who knows the ugly face of war better than anyone, is ready to make 'painful sacrifices' to end the conflict." Sharon was held "personally responsible" for the massacre by Israel's own commission of inquiry -- but there was no mention of that from Wiesel, who told reporters in May that he would like to revoke Arafat's Nobel prize.
President Bush was not going to oppose these pressures. His father may well have lost his re-election because he dared to tell Israel that it must make peace with the Arabs. Bush is not going to make the same mistake -- nor does brother Jeb want to lose his forthcoming governorship election. Thus Sharon's delight at the Bush speech, and it was left to a lonely and brave voice -- Mitchell Plitnick of the Jewish Voice for Peace -- to state that "few speeches could be considered to be as destructive as that of the American President... Few things are as blinding as unbridled arrogance."
Or as vicious as the messages that still pour in to Dennis Bernstein and Barbara Lubin, whose Middle East Children's Alliance, co-ordinating with Israeli peace groups, is trying to raise money to rebuild the Jenin refugee camp. "I got a call the other day at 5am," Bernstein told me. "This guy says to me: 'You got a lot of nerve going and eating at that Jewish deli.' What comes after that?" Before I left San Francisco, Lubin showed me her latest e-mails. "Dear Cunt," one of them begins, "When we want your opinion you fucking Nazi cunt, we will have one of your Palestinian buddies fuck it [sic] of you. I hope that in your next trip to the occupied territories you are blown to bits by one of your Palestinian buddies [sic] bombs." Another, equally obscene, adds that "you should be ashamed of yourself, a so-called Jewish woman advocating the destruction of Israel".
Less crude language, of course, greeted President Bush's speech. Pat Robertson thought the Bush address "brilliant". Senator Charles Schumer, a totally loyal pro-Israeli Democrat from New York, said that "clearly, on the politics, this is going to please supporters of Israel as well as the Christian coalition types". He could say that again. For who could be more Christian than President George W Bush?
link to story
Konferens hos ”Forum för Sociometri” Norrköping: temat ”Med uppdrag att förbättra världen” / ( en av Morenos sentenser ). Ungefär nittio personer var med – från skola, socialtjänst, olika vårdsammanhang. Olika åldrar och utbildningar.
Det är någonting med Jakob Morenos metod, psykodrama, som gör att inga ämnen riskerar att behandlas överseriöst eller monologiskt. På de här tillställningarna i Norrköping dyker det upp filosofer, poeter, musiker som går in i psykodrama-metodens fria ram. Den här gången kom "felosofen", den arbetslöse hovnarren Ladislaus Horatius. ( Ja, han finns ). Och Bernt Gustavsson idéhistoriker och kunskapsfilosof. De hade föredrag där de röjde bland språkliga hinder för mellanmänsklig förståelse. T.ex. ”monologiska dialogen”: oarten hos institutioner, företag, partier när de vill ge sken av dialog eftersom formen ger demokrati-poäng. Att få en dialog som har äkthet tar tid, kräver tålamod o noggrant frågande. Vi använder fejkat frågande för att angripa, anklaga, påstå saker el för att få självbekräftelse. Som i frågan: vad i helvete håller du på med?!! En verklig fråga är en utsträckt, öppen hand. Den hotar inte, suktar inte. ( Är jag inte bra! ) Den erbjuder något förutsättningslöst men användbart osv osv. En av grupperna jag var med i leddes av Eva Fahlström och Kerstin Buckley. Vi gjorde ett ”etiktorg”. Deltagarna stod för fyra olika etiska ståndpunkter: regel-etik, konsekvens-etik, sinnelags-etik, plikt-etik. Den som hade problemfrågan fick vända sig för råd till de olika instanserna. De som var "filosofer" fick pröva på att ge råd från fyra olika förhållningssätt. Poängen var att se om någon större samlad förståelse uppstod när man fick uttrycka motsatta handlingslinjer. Deltog också i en grupp om ett problem som byggde på en händelse som ägt rum i Estland. Deltagarna fick improvisera olika rollfigurer som stod emot varandra: make, lärare, elev, myndighet, älskad vän. Psykodramagrupp kan både vara en inventering, ett sorts forumteater - men också ett drama med konfliktlösning, katarsis. Det svåra är själva snabbheten - att använda intution utan gardering. Psykodrama i olika former borde användas av politiska grupper.
Ett citat av Ladislaus, Bakpartiet :
"Vi lovar ingenting och gröna skogar, och det tänker vi hålla!"
Öppet brev till Zaremba och DN:
Jag såg i DN och hörde på radio att Ordfront blivit kritiserad av dig, anklagad för att vara "brun". Ordfront skulle vara "i famnen på de bruna".
Det är typiskt att DN med hjälp av dig angriper Ordfront som är ett av de få offentliga medierna som öppet kritiserar Israel / USA-regeringens aggression.
DN har ju själv på ett försåtligt sätt gett stöd för USA:s angreppskrig. Man har noga låtit bli att ta ställning för de folkliga protesterna mot krigets massdödande.
Som jag förstått saken har antagligen över 30.000 människor dödats under de militära angreppen i Irak och Afghanistan. De oräknade liken har vräkts i massgravar.
Därför ter sig din kritik så ovanligt motbjudande. Du försöker smutsa de radikala kritikerna med hjälp av den fascism som fanns i det förgångna ( "de bruna" ) men du tycks blind för den pågående marschen mot våldsdyrkan och militarism i USA / Israel. Här kan man verkligen tala om en person med ställning i offentligheten som väljer ett maliciöst ordvrängande istället för en frambrytande sanning som är svår att urskilja på grund av maktförhållandena i världen.
Jag läste Ordfronts artiklar om USA:s roll i Balkankriget och såg dem som ett försök att ruska om gängse klichéer. Fick inte heller intrycket att redaktionen stod bakom allt som sades. Mig veterligen förnekades inte att serberna skulle ha begått olika övergrepp. Snarare sas det att omfattningen var överdriven för att motivera bombkriget. Enligt samma logik som när USA-regeringen i fallet Irak först talade om massförstörelsevapen för att kunna sätta igång massdödande.
Jag kan inte heller undgå att tänka på hur DN behandlade förstörelsen av Jenin - hur man tonade ner och genast gick på Israels officiella linje: att det inte hade rört sig om någon massaker. Att det också var rimligt att FN inte släpptes in för inspektion. DN bidrar numera till en förvriden bild av världshändelserna. "Den stora tidningen" tål tydligen inte heller en sanningssägande utmanare, som Ordfront.
Verkar också som om du försöker kränga dig ut och in för att bevisa att välfärdssamhället egentligen skulle vila på fascism och rasism. Och på motsvarande sätt är då tydligen stormakter som USA-EU något av en räddning för civilisationen?
Det är yttrandefriheten som hotas på ett försåtligt sätt genom Dagens Nyheter.
Avsikten verkar vara att marginalisera och tysta kritiken mot stormakterna och deras lierade.
Gunnar Thorell Johanneshov
Isaksson i DN om drevet mot Skandiadirektörerna
Artikeln säger ungefär att "eliten" använder det här spåret för att dölja korruptionen i sina egna led.
DN: Zaremba: "Ordfront förnekar folmord på Balkan"
Häftig debatt på radion mellan Zaremba och Leif Ericsson ang. den här artikeln.