| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2004 9:42 am Post subject: The Warlords of America: Bush may be the lesser evil |
| http://www.counterpunch.com/pilger08232004.html
August 23, 2004
The Warlords of America
Bush May Be the Lesser EvilBy JOHN PILGER
Most of the US's recent wars were launched by Democratic presidents. Why expect better of Kerry? The debate between US liberals and conservatives is a fake; Bush may be the lesser evil.
On 6 May last, the US House of Representatives passed a resolution which, in effect, authorised a "pre-emptive" attack on Iran.
The vote was 376-3. Undeterred by the accelerating disaster in Iraq, Republicans and Democrats, wrote one commentator, "once again joined hands to assert the responsibilities of American power".
The joining of hands across America's illusory political divide has a long history.
The native Americans were slaughtered, the Philippines laid to waste and Cuba and much of Latin America brought to heel with "bipartisan" backing.
Wading through the blood, a new breed of popular historian, the journalist in the pay of rich newspaper owners, spun the heroic myths of a supersect called Americanism, which advertising and public relations in the 20th century formalised as an ideology, embracing both conservatism and liberalism.
In the modern era, most of America's wars have been launched by liberal Democratic presidents - Harry Truman in Korea, John F Kennedy and Lyndon B Johnson in Vietnam, Jimmy Carter in Afghanistan.
The fictitious "missile gap" was invented by Kennedy's liberal New Frontiersmen as a rationale for keeping the cold war going.
In 1964, a Democrat-dominated Congress gave President Johnson authority to attack Vietnam, a defenceless peasant nation offering no threat to the United States.
Like the non-existent WMDs in Iraq, the justification was a non- existent "incident" in which, it was said, two North Vietnamese patrol boats had attacked an American warship.
More than three million deaths and the ruin of a once bountiful land followed.
During the past 60 years, only once has Congress voted to limit the president's "right" to terrorise other countries.
This aberration, the Clark Amendment 1975, a product of the great anti- Vietnam war movement, was repealed in 1985 by Ronald Reagan.
During Reagan's assaults on central America in the 1980s, liberal voices such as Tom Wicker of the New York Times, doyen of the "doves", seriously debated whether or not tiny, impoverished Nicaragua was a threat to the United States.
These days, terrorism having replaced the red menace, another fake debate is under way.
This is lesser evilism.
Although few liberal-minded voters seem to have illusions about John Kerry, their need to get rid of the "rogue" Bush administration is all-consuming. Representing them in Britain, the Guardian says that the coming presidential election is "exceptional".
"Mr Kerry's flaws and limitations are evident," says the paper, "but they are put in the shade by the neoconservative agenda and catastrophic war-making of Mr Bush.
This is an election in which almost the whole world will breathe a sigh of relief if the incumbent is defeated."
The whole world may well breathe a sigh of relief: the Bush regime is both dangerous and universally loathed; but that is not the point.
We have debated lesser evilism so often on both sides of the Atlantic that it is surely time to stop gesturing at the obvious and to examine critically a system that produces the Bushes and their Democratic shadows.
For those of us who marvel at our luck in reaching mature years without having been blown to bits by the warlords of Americanism, Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal, and for the millions all over the world who now reject the American contagion in political life, the true issue is clear.
It is the continuation of a project that began more than 500 years ago.
The privileges of "discovery and conquest" granted to Christopher Columbus in 1492, in a world the pope considered "his property to be disposed according to his will", have been replaced by another piracy transformed into the divine will of Americanism and sustained by technological progress, notably that of the media.
"The threat to independence in the late 20th century from the new electronics," wrote Edward Said in Culture and Imperialism, "could be greater than was colonialism itself.
We are beginning to learn that decolonisation was not the termination of imperial relationships but merely the extending of a geopolitical web which has been spinning since the Renaissance.
The new media have the power to penetrate more deeply into a 'receiving' culture than any previous manifestation of western technology."
Every modern president has been, in large part, a media creation.
Thus, the murderous Reagan is sanctified still; Rupert Murdoch's Fox Channel and the post-Hutton BBC have differed only in their forms of adulation.
And Bill Clinton is regarded nostalgically by liberals as flawed but enlightened; yet Clinton's presidential years were far more violent than Bush's and his goals were the same: "the integration of countries into the global free- market community", the terms of which, noted the New York Times, "require the United States to be involved in the plumbing and wiring of nations' internal affairs more deeply than ever before".
The Pentagon's "full-spectrum dominance" was not the product of the "neo-cons" but of the liberal Clinton, who approved what was then the greatest war expenditure in history.
According to the Guardian, Clinton's heir, John Kerry, sends us "energising progressive calls".
It is time to stop this nonsense.
Supremacy is the essence of Americanism; only the veil changes or slips.
In 1976, the Democrat Jimmy Carter announced "a foreign policy that respects human rights".
In secret, he backed Indonesia's genocide in East Timor and established the mujahedin in Afghanistan as a terrorist organisation designed to overthrow the Soviet Union, and from which came the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
It was the liberal Carter, not Reagan, who laid the ground for George W Bush.
In the past year, I have interviewed Carter's principal foreign policy overlords - Zbigniew Brzezinski, his national security adviser, and James Schlesinger, his defence secretary.
No blueprint for the new imperialism is more respected than Brzezinski's.
Invested with biblical authority by the Bush gang, his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard: American primacy and its geostrategic imperatives describes American priorities as the economic subjugation of the Soviet Union and the control of central Asia and the Middle East.
His analysis says that "local wars" are merely the beginning of a final conflict leading inexorably to world domination by the US.
"To put it in a terminology that harkens back to a more brutal age of ancient empires," he writes, "the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together."
It may have been easy once to dismiss this as a message from the lunar right.
But Brzezinski is mainstream.
His devoted students include Madeleine Albright, who, as secretary of state under Clinton, described the death of half a million infants in Iraq during the US-led embargo as "a price worth paying", and John Negroponte, the mastermind of American terror in central America under Reagan who is currently "ambassador" in Baghdad.
James Rubin, who was Albright's enthusiastic apologist at the State Department, is being considered as John Kerry's national security adviser.
He is also a Zionist; Israel's role as a terror state is beyond discussion.
Cast an eye over the rest of the world.
As Iraq has crowded the front pages, American moves into Africa have attracted little attention.
Here, the Clinton and Bush policies are seamless.
In the 1990s, Clinton's African Growth and Opportunity Act launched a new scramble for Africa.
Humanitarian bombers wonder why Bush and Blair have not attacked Sudan and "liberated" Darfur, or intervened in Zimbabwe or the Congo.
The answer is that they have no interest in human distress and human rights, and are busy securing the same riches that led to the European scramble in the late 19th century by the traditional means of coercion and bribery, known as multilateralism.
The Congo and Zambia possess 50 per cent of world cobalt reserves; 98 per cent of the world's chrome reserves are in Zimbabwe and South Africa.
More importantly, there is oil and natural gas in Africa from Nigeria to Angola, and in Higleig, south-west Sudan. Under Clinton, the African Crisis Response Initiative (Acri) was set up in secret.
This has allowed the US to establish "military assistance programmes" in Senegal, Uganda, Malawi, Ghana, Benin, Algeria, Niger, Mali and Chad. Acri is run by Colonel Nestor Pino-Marina, a Cuban exile who took part in the 1961 Bay of Pigs landing and went on to be a special forces officer in Vietnam and Laos, and who, under Reagan, helped lead the Contra invasion of Nicaragua.
The pedigrees never change.
None of this is discussed in a presidential campaign in which John Kerry strains to out-Bush Bush.
The multilateralism or "muscular internationalism" that Kerry offers in contrast to Bush's unilateralism is seen as hopeful by the terminally naive; in truth, it beckons even greater dangers.
Having given the American elite its greatest disaster since Vietnam, writes the historian Gabriel Kolko in Dime's Worth of Difference: Beyond the Lesser of Two Evils, Bush "is much more likely to continue the destruction of the alliance system that is so crucial to American power.
One does not have to believe the worse the better, but we have to consider candidly the foreign policy consequences of a renewal of Bush's mandate . . . As dangerous as it is, Bush's re-election may be a lesser evil."
With Nato back in train under President Kerry, and the French and Germans compliant, American ambitions will proceed without the Napoleonic hindrances of the Bush gang.
Little of this appears even in the American papers worth reading.
The Washington Post's hand-wringing apology to its readers on 14 August for not "pay[ing] enough attention to voices raising questions about the war [against Iraq]" has not interrupted its silence on the danger that the American state presents to the world.
Bush's rating has risen in the polls to more than 50 per cent, a level at this stage in the campaign at which no incumbent has ever lost.
The virtues of his "plain speaking", which the entire media machine promoted four years ago - Fox and the Washington Post alike - are again credited.
As in the aftermath of the 11 September attacks, Americans are denied a modicum of understanding of what Norman Mailer has called "a pre-fascist climate". The fears of the rest of us are of no consequence.
The professional liberals on both sides of the Atlantic have played a major part in this.
The campaign against Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 is indicative.
The film is not radical and makes no outlandish claims; what it does is push past those guarding the boundaries of "respectable" dissent.
That is why the public applauds it.
It breaks the collusive codes of journalism, which it shames.
It allows people to begin to deconstruct the nightly propaganda that passes for news: in which "a sovereign Iraqi government pursues democracy" and those fighting in Najaf and Fallujah and Basra are always "militants" and "insurgents" or members of a "private army", never nationalists defending their homeland and whose resistance has probably forestalled attacks on Iran, Syria or North Korea.
The real debate is neither Bush nor Kerry, but the system they exemplify; it is the decline of true democracy and the rise of the American "national security state" in Britain and other countries claiming to be democracies, in which people are sent to prison and the key thrown away and whose leaders commit capital crimes in faraway places, unhindered, and then, like the ruthless Blair, invite the thug they install to address the Labour Party conference.
The real debate is the subjugation of national economies to a system which divides humanity as never before and sustains the deaths, every day, of 24,000 hungry people.
The real debate is the subversion of political language and of debate itself and perhaps, in the end, our self-respect.
John Pilger's new book, Tell Me No Lies: investigative journalism and its triumphs, will be published in October by Jonathan Cape. | |  | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2004 10:02 am Post subject: Kerry Appoints Zionist (AIPAC) Jew as Top Mideast Advisor |
| Forwarded:
The fourth paragraph illustrates why Kerry is more deadly than the
moron Israel firster (Bush). Same ideas but Kerry will get allies to push forth his
policies.
-------------------
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?
pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer&cid=1092626412132&p=1078113566627
Kerry appoints Mel Levine top Mideast adviser
---------------------------------
Tom Tugend, THE JERUSALEM POST Aug. 16, 2004
---------------------------------
When Washington goes its own way and disrespects its allies, it
hurts not only the United States, but Israel as well, insists Mel
Levine.
"Whenever America is diminished in the eyes of the world, it does
Israel no favor," said Levine, who as John Kerry's newly appointed
top adviser on the Middle East is expected to play a major role in
shaping the Democrat's policy on region.
During an interview in his law office, the former congressman from
West Los Angeles was addressing himself to concerns that Kerry's
advocacy of a multilateral US foreign policy might mean greater
pressure on Israel for concessions to the Palestinians and
surrounding Arab states.
Not so, said Levine, "but if we cannot convince Europe, Russia and
other countries to keep nuclear weapons away from Iran, to fight
terrorism, and to exert greater leverage on Arab countries, we will
fail," and thereby weaken Israel.
To gauge Kerry's attitude toward Israel, one need only look at his
votes during 20 years in the US Senate, according to Levine.
"By every rating and criterion, Kerry's votes have shown 100 percent
solid support for Israel," he said. "That's well understood in his
home state of Massachusetts, but not yet throughout the rest of the
country."
Levine's appointment as chair of the Kerry campaign's Middle East
Policy Working Group has been hailed by Jewish spokesmen and
organizations as a reassurance that Israel's interests will have an
eloquent voice in Kerry's inner circle.
As congressman and member of the House foreign affairs committee
from 1983 to 1993, Levine was among Israel's strongest supporters.
His clashes with former Secretary of State James Baker on the Middle
East policies of the first President Bush have become part of
Washington folklore.
Representing the US, Levine has also had considerable experience in
dealing with the Arab side.
At Vice President Al Gore's request, he served as co-president, with
Arab-American James Zogby, of Builders for Peace, a private sector
initiative to make the West Bank economy more competitive that,
despite its good intentions, largely failed.
Following the 1998 Wye Plantation accords, Levine chaired the US-
Israel-Palestinian "anti-incitement" task force. He learned from
this experience that incitement has to be confronted directly and
aggressively, a lesson he is passing on to Kerry.
Until recently, he served on the board of the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee (AIPAC), but has cut his activities in advocacy
groups since becoming chairman of the non-political Community
Relations Committee of the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles.
The Middle East Policy Working Group, said Levine, is not a formal
committee with regular meetings and joint policy formulations. "I
will be seeking informal and informed input from other members, and
then render my advice," Levine said.
He also believes that with Kerry's long service on the Senate
foreign relations committee and his global outlook, "he won't need
much policy guidance. Unlike other presidents, whose previous
experiences were as state governors, Kerry will hit the ground
running."
When Jewish Republicans and Democrats argue the merits of their
presidential candidates, and whether sizeable chunks of the
overwhelmingly Democratic Jewish community will defect this time to
President Bush, Republicans stress the incumbent's pro-Israel
record. Democrats – while not conceding that their man is any less
pro-Israel – emphasize the Bush administration's perceived domestic
policy failures.
Edward Sanders, an elder statesman of the Los Angeles and national
Jewish communities, and who served as President Jimmy Carter's
Middle East and Jewish relations adviser, has no doubt about his
priorities. "I couldn't vote for a candidate who is good for Israel
and bad on everything else," said the veteran Democrat and Kerry
supporter. "What's good for a strong and respected United States is
good for Israel."
Levine acknowledges that the Democrats may not quite retain the 80
percent of the Jewish vote they got in the last presidential
election, when they fielded Al Gore, a longtime friend of the Jewish
community, and Jewish vice presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman.
But with Bush and Kerry equally pro-Israel, in Levine's view, Jewish
voters will come down overwhelmingly on Kerry's side on a wide range
of domestic issues.
"On the top of the list is church-state separation, and to say that
the present administration has blurred the line is a significant
understatement," said Levine.
Other issues where Levine perceives serious Bush weaknesses include
privacy rights, energy independence, woman's right to choose, health
care, the environment, and preserving social services.
Veteran Democratic Rep. Howard Berman of California has known Levine
for some 27 years and sees the latter's appointment as "an obvious
statement by Kerry that he will be a strong supporter of Israel and
its security interests.
Another longtime colleague, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles)
praised Kerry's ability to "translate his views into public policy."
In a survey by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, leaders of major
Jewish organizations such as AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League, and
the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations
overwhelmingly endorsed the choice of Levine, though some noted that
in the end it would be up to Kerry to act on Levine's
recommendations.
Levine said he would be an "active advocate" in the Kerry campaign,
but declined to speculate on a future role in a Kerry administration. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2004 10:06 am Post subject: Kerry No Different than Bush in Zionist Invasion of Iraq |
| Wednesday, August 18, 2004
Kerry deals away his ace in the hole
By HELEN THOMAS
HEARST NEWSPAPERS
WASHINGTON -- It appears American voters have little choice between the presidential candidates in the November election when it comes to the disastrous war against Iraq.
Both President Bush and his rival, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., seem to think it was worth the 932 American lives (so far) and thousands of U.S. wounded to get one man behind bars -- Saddam Hussein.
There also are the untold thousands of Iraqis dead and wounded as well. But, as one Pentagon spokesman told me, "They don't count."
Kerry has made a colossal mistake by continuing to defend his October 2002 vote authorizing President Bush's invasion of Iraq.
Last week at the Grand Canyon, Kerry said he would have "voted to give the president the authority to go to war" even if he had known there were no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction -- Bush's original justification for war on Iraq.
Kerry explained that he believes a president should have the "authority" to go to war, and he voted accordingly. But he insisted that Bush subsequently misused the authority by rushing headlong into combat based on faulty intelligence about Saddam's weapons arsenal.
Kerry is mistaken on a key point. Under the U.S. Constitution, the president does not have that sole right to declare war. Despite its mindless default, that right still belongs to Congress.
Kerry has passed up several chances to distance himself from the Iraqi debacle. But instead he has left himself wide open to Bush's ridicule. What's he got left -- stem-cell research?
Bush had a field day smirking and mocking his political rival and telling the nation that he was "right" to attack Iraq, absence of weapons notwithstanding.
Bush has sarcastically told cheering Republican rallies, "After months of questioning my motives and even my credibility, Sen. Kerry now agrees with me."
"We did the right thing," Bush bragged. "And the world is better off for it."
The senator should have called Bush's hand months ago and laid it on the line after so much official deception. How could he say he would have voted for the 2002 war resolution after he and the whole world learned the rationale for the war was based on falsehoods?
Does Kerry realize that the U.S. invasion of Iraq without provocation violates the U.N. Charter and the Nuremberg Tribunal principles?
Kerry has a weak fallback position-- that he would have planned things differently before going to war and would have lined up more European allies. Knowing what they know now about the Bush fiasco, France and Germany are congratulating themselves for having the good sense to stay out of Iraq.
So Kerry has blown it big time, rising to Bush's bait and throwing away his ace in the hole -- Bush's shaky credibility on the profound question of war and peace.
Bush has yet to apologize for misleading the nation or to explain why he needed a war when Saddam's regime was tightly contained with sanctions, weapons inspections and U.S. patrolling of the "no-fly" zone.
Bush has no exit strategy or timetable for a troop withdrawal even under the facade of Iraqi sovereignty.
Kerry has talked about drawing down American forces and an eventual pullout.
But he could learn something from two previous wartime Republican presidential candidates who had a better take on the public pulse and won the White House.
In 1952 during the Korean War, Dwight D. Eisenhower made a campaign promise that he would "go to Korea" and end the bloodshed. He did go to Korea and the war ended with a cease-fire standoff months after his inauguration.
In 1968, Richard Nixon said he had a "plan" to end the Vietnam War and the voters, wanting peace, bought it. Nixon -- in part forced by Congress -- reduced the U.S. troop commitment to Vietnam, but U.S. forces were still there when Nixon was forced to resign from office in 1974 because of the Watergate scandal. But the war ended the following year.
These were not triumphal solutions but they did give Americans some hope of eventual escape from the two quagmires.
In 1964, a Los Angeles Times cartoon by famed Paul Conrad showed a pollster knocking on a door. A woman sticks her head out of a window and the pollster asks her voting preference: "President Johnson or Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz.?" She replies: "Who else have you got?"
That may be the fix some Americans are in again.
Helen Thomas is a columnist for Hearst Newspapers. E-mail: helent@hearstdc.com. Copyright 2004 Hearst Newspapers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=7432
Nader draws ire of pro-Israeli Americans
Consumer advocate turned presidential candidate looks for Arab support
By Hussein Ibish
Daily Star staff
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
WASHINGTON: Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader is again
receiving considerable support from Arab-American activists, spurred in
part by his bold criticism of the US role in the Middle East and
Israel's role in the United States.
Surveys suggest that Nader received about 14 percent of the
Arab-American vote in 2000, and stands to do at least as well in the
vote this November.
Perhaps more than any other important national political figure in the
United States of Arab origin, Nader really has begun to sound like a
representative of his community on issues such as Palestine and Iraq.
For decades as a consumer advocate and social justice activist, and even
during his 2000 presidential campaign, Nader downplayed his ethnic
background and offered few observations on foreign policy issues
important to the Arab-American community.
However, since his first major address on the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict at the national convention of the American-Arab
Anti-Discrimination Committee in June 2003, Nader has become sharply
critical of US support for Israeli policies.
On June 29, Nader called both Democratic and Republican leaders "puppets
of Israel," saying, "the Israeli puppeteer travels to Washington and
meets with the puppet in (the) White House. He then goes down
Pennsylvania Avenue and meets with the puppets in Congress."
As a result, Nader has faced a barrage of criticism, mainly from the
Anti-Defamation League, one of the most influential pro-Israel Jewish
organizations in the United States. The ADL's National Director,
Abraham Foxman, said Nader's comments "smack of bigotry."
Nader responded with a lengthy letter, asking Foxman, "have you ever
disagreed with the Israeli government's treatment of the Palestinian
people in any way, shape or manner in the Occupied Territories?"
"As you know there is far more freedom in the media, in town squares and
among citizens, soldiers, elected representatives and academicians in
Israel to debate and discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than there
is in the United States," Nader's letter stated.
In an unsigned editorial on Aug. 14, The Washington Post acknowledged
that "Mr. Nader has a point," but denounced his language as "poisonous,"
compared his comments to those of neo-Nazis, and accused him of playing
on "the age-old anti-Semitic stereotype of powerful Jews dominating
politics and manipulating hapless non-Jewish puppets for their own ends."
His frank criticism of US Middle East policy has certainly ruffled
pro-Israeli feathers, but it has ensured Nader's continued appeal to
many Arab-Americans, especially given widespread disapproval of US
President George W. Bush's foreign policy, and disappointment that
Senator John Kerry seems to offer few alternatives, especially with
regard to Israel.
Nader told The Daily Star that while he has been getting considerable
support, "too many Arab Americans have equipped themselves with
microscopes, desperately trying to find differences between (President)
Bush and Kerry on foreign policy, and there is none - they are both
trying to run to the right of each other."
"We are the only anti-war candidacy and have a lot more knowledge of the
Middle East than the other two," he said.
He urged Arab-Americans to "deny Bush their vote, and send a message to
Kerry by voting for us, because when you are taken for granted, you are
taken."
Some prominent American Muslim leaders who supported Bush in 2000 are
known to be quietly but strongly supportive of Nader, but are keeping a
low profile because they do not wish to be seen as indirectly supporting
Bush again.
Naseem Tufaha, an Arab-American activist in Seattle, is among those
involved in creating an "Arab-Americans for Nader" website, which seeks
to generate support for the campaign in the community through online
activism. He dismisses the idea that supporting Nader is simply an
indirect way of supporting Bush, telling The Daily Star, "the
Arab-American vote is being taken for granted by Bush and Kerry - we
need to create an environment where candidates feel they have something
to lose and something to gain from paying attention to our views."
Many Democrats allege that in 2000 Nader siphoned off voters almost
entirely from former Vice-President Al Gore, ensuring the election of
George W. Bush, and express deep anxiety that Nader's candidacy this
year might similarly doom Kerry's aspirations. Nader has persisted in
running despite intense criticism from Kerry supporters, and a series of
setbacks, including not being re-adopted as the candidate of the Green
Party - which has an extensive grassroots network - and failing to get
on the ballot in a number of states, including California.
Nader said his participation in the upcoming televised candidates'
debates is "all important - it's the only way to reach tens of millions
of people, unless you are a billionaire. We call ourselves the greatest
democracy in the world, and a private corporation created and controlled
by the two parties since 1987 - the Commission on Presidential Debates -
determines who reaches the tens of millions of voters."
In an effort to create a non-partisan forum for the debates this year, a
group of 17 American civic leaders from a range of political
perspectives have founded a new organization called Open Debates. The
group's executive director, George Farah, recently announced that Open
Debates has scheduled five presidential and one vice-presidential
debates in the coming weeks.
Although Nader has welcomed this development, it remains to be seen
whether Kerry or Bush will agree to participate in any of these
citizen-organized debates.
Albert Mokhiber, a Washington attorney supportive of Nader and a former
president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, told The
Daily Star, "there aren't two candidates, there are three, and the other
two are exactly the same on foreign policy. ... Would you rather have
arsenic or cyanide?" he asked rhetorically.
"I'd rather have a vitamin, and Nader is a vitamin." | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2004 10:16 am Post subject: Terminate the Final Crusade |
| Terminate the Final Crusade
Charles E. Carlson
Frequently, letters come from christian-Zionist leaders who can’t
resist setting us straight. The following is from Dr. Cash, a
Baptist pastor with academic credentials, who says Israel owns the
entire Middle East. Dr. Cash’s views are to some degree accepted
without real consideration by 40 to 70 million evangelicals who have
allowed themselves to become enablers in the serial wars that we
call “The Final Crusade.” In the eyes of Dr. Cash, and millions like
him, the war on terrorism is a crusade to recapture Philistine for
Israel. Mike Holland M.D., one of our advisors, answers Dr. Cash.
At the root of our war problems, as well as America’s economic
deterioration, is the fanatical demand for retribution against Islam,
willingly being fueled by politicians and the Zionist arm of the
media, and fostered by evangelical celebrities. America’s serial
wars bear a remarkable resemblance to the terrible, 200 year-long
Crusades jump-started by Pope Urban II in the 11th Century.
Politicians of both political parties would think twice about their
plans for more serial wars were it not for the justification provided
by the powerful evangelical voting mass. And without the drum
cadence beat out by the media evangelicals there would be little
public support for serial wars. Each is unscriptural, requires
constant promotion, and kills Americans. More than a few extreme
media evangelicals call for total destruction of Islam, and by its
sightless support for the acts of Israel, millions of layman accept
the preaching and justify retribution without considering an
alternative viewpoint, like ours.
Celebrity evangelicals openly demand a crusade against Islam and with
it the costs that we must ultimately bear. The Final Crusade has
brought us the $50.00 per barrel oil prices that are a directly
traceable result of serial wars. Iraq, is probably producing at
about 30% of its capacity had it been left alone 15 years ago. This
is not the only example, and does not ever consider the human cost of
almost 1,000 dead American servicemen.
We Hold These Truths has just taken the biggest step in our seven
year history, taking our message to about 200,000 primarily
evangelicals leaders and college students and faculty in August by E-
mail. Many have subscribed or responded to our Pharisee Watch
features, as did Dr. Cash. Website visits are climbing. Those who
oppose us light our path. Those who encourage and support us make it
possible for us to write and publish aggressively.
We are now capable of sending about 100.000 E-mails per day, each one
individually addressed. We need the addresses of hundred of
thousands. And all of our activities are 100% legal and in full
compliance with the Federal laws that now regulate bulk E-mail
sending. We are taking advantage of the information window offered
by the Internet, while it lasts.
I need not tell you this is costly and you are our only means of
support.
Jesus followers went straight to the temples and synagogues to
deliver their message. We go to the churches. Our next goal is to
double the number who receive Pharisee Watch editorial to about one
million a month by year-end. Our targets are the leaders of all
churches, seminaries and colleges.
The Presbyterian Church of American has apparently sensed they have
been funding the Final Crusade, and have divested themselves from the
State of Israel and condemned the wall imprisoning Palestinians. We
are not endorsing the PCA, we only note their leaders are on the
right track on this one most vital issue in the history of our
nation. May God bless them with even more wisdom. See: Major US
Christian Denomination Backs Divestment From Israel.
(http://www.whtt.org/whtt.shtml?rpr/Presb.htm)
We plan to deliver our encouragement to 100,000 leaders PCA and then
go on to other mainline churches.
To get the attention of evangelicals we formed Project Strait Gate
Teams who have now held vigils in front of nearly forty churches and
conventions since we began in November 2002.
Two teams in Southern California have four or five vigils behind
them, and report enthusiasm for the results. A subtle turning of
attitude is in the air, especially among the passers-by, who are no
longer overwhelmingly pro-war.
All of our support for Project Strait Gate comes from individuals.
Every book you purchase or dollar you send brings our goals closer.
Thank you. http://www.whtt.org/catalog/default.php?
cPath=26&osCsid=ea92288aaee2cbbd1912ebf95acf9487
Toward the strait gate- CEC
ORIGINAL LETTER FROM DR. CASH ON AUGUST 4TH
Islam is a FALSE religion...study the history...they worship who was
originally the MOON GOD...there is documentation to prove that!!
They are a bloody, hostile religion by their very book (Koran).
There agenda has not changed...the conversion of us
Christian "infidels" to Islam by hook or crook. Mrs. Kerry is an
inside, secret supporter of these people.
Israel has a titled deed to ALL of their land in the book of Genesis.
Indeed they will get more. God said to Abraham: " I will bless them
that bless you and curese them that curse you" Make NO mistake about
it, it STILL holds true!
AND ON AUGUST 19 DR. CASH WROTE MORE:
Oh, I almost forgot....
We are Solid Rock Baptist Church and we are located at 110 Church St.
Madison Heights, Virginia. Our morning worship is at 11:00 Am every
Sunday. Our Wednesday night service is held at our educational
complex located at 380 Colony Rd in Madison Heights at 6:00 pm. We
have NEVER run from controversy...come on down!
Dr.David Cash
(DrDave57@aol.com) | | | | Alpha | | | | Ilana_Halevy | | Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2004 10:50 am Post subject: |
| | So again Alpha and his Muslim friends will vote for Bush and again will blaim Jews in his policy. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2004 6:20 pm Post subject: NO MORE WAR FOR ISRAEL |
| | Ilana_Halevy wrote: | | So again Alpha and his Muslim friends will vote for Bush and again will blaim Jews in his policy. |
I am not voting for either Israel firster hack... The above post conveys that the JINSA/CSP/PNAC Zionist extremists (most of whom are Jewish racists) took full advantage of the Christian evangelical whackos (Bush is supposedly one as well).
http://www.nowarforisrael.com | | | | Alpha | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
