Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Richard Falk speaks out (22 posts)

  1. critique
    Member

    Hi, I'm new to this board, though have been reading for a while and appreciate the analysis I find here.

    My main interest is wildlife conservation, followed closely by my interest in a free and fair media: I came into 911 truth by noticing the lacuna that surrounds discussion of 911 in the msm.

    I have a question about Richard Falk at the moment. Apart from contributing a foreword to DR Griffin's book and offering the odd, fairly neutral comment about 911, he's kept quiet about the matter. Today I read (on 911blogger, via The Journal) that he's suddenly speaking out far more strongly on the issue; albeit making a veiled criticism of the TM's own lack of 'theory'. As I'm into more facts, and less into speculative theory, I wondered what to make of his words. Is one to make anything of his Council Of Foreign Relations connections and previous World Order Models Project (WOMP) work? Is Falk genuine here? I guess I'm asking for help, not knowing Falk's work well enough and not wanting to start distributing this link widely to others I communicate with here in the developing world before I get to know more about him. Anyone feel strongly about him, one way or another?

    Posted 16 years ago #
  2. critique
    Member

    Further to my previous post "911: More than Meets the Eye" - R Falk (The Journal, Issue 13) or http://911blogger.com/node/18483#comment :

    These are RF's words I take issue with, in particular:

    RF: "What has not been established by the “9/11 Truth Movement” is a convincing counter-narrative – that is, an alternate version of the events that clears up to what degree, if at all, the attacks resulted from incompetence, deliberate inaction, and outright complicity."

    RF calls for 'counter-narrative'. I rejected Bush's official story precisely because it struck me as 'narrative' rather than a factual, verifiable account. Semantically, the words 'narrative' and 'counter-narrative' are loaded. To me, 'narrative' implies story, truthiness, emotive manipulation of text in order to carry a reader from Point A through to Point Z. I think RF is dead wrong to call for 'counter-narrative'. He may as well call for 'counter-legend' or 'counter-spin'. Perhaps that is what he is calling for.

    RF enters the 911 discussion, appearing to be open-minded, but he hedges all his bets and paces himself very carefully through a two-partner tango: narrative and counter-narrative. Should one take up his dance invitation?

    Posted 16 years ago #
  3. christs4sale
    Administrator

    I agree. Thanks for noticing this. It is not our responsibility to make a counter-narrative. By making a counter-narrative, we then have to defend this counter-narrative and it makes us very vulnerable. It should be the other way around.

    It shows you how much damage people like Tarpley and Griffin have done because I believe that they played the most prominent roles in getting the movement to become vulnerable in this way. I remember at a St Marks Church meeting several years ago when Nico was speaking and he said something along the lines of: "Unlike Kyle Hence who has Unanswered Questions, we actually try to answer them." Meaning Kyle is covering something up because he will not speculate.

    I remember when Ron Weick when he debated John Judge and Kyle Hence on Air America Radio and Ron asked John and Kyle what they actually thought happened on 9/11. Most of their arguments were criticism of the official story and the 9/11 Commission Report. Ron had little to criticize and ended up actually agreeing with John and Kyle on certain points. Ron had little to go on so he just asked them what their narrative of 9/11 was because that is what he is used to tearing down. From JFK up to 9/11, that is probably the most common technique of the debunkers. Shift the burden of proof to the other side. It is classic Gerald Posner. But what most people in the 9/11 movement did not realize was that there were people that had became prominent within and whose primary motivation was to lead us into a direction that would set us up for being debunked. The only issue is that many of those people who are responsible for setting us up are still viewed positively by most of the movement.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  4. critique
    Member

    Thanks for the reply, christsforsale. I think one really has to stick to one's guns and not get swayed by authoritative figures which pop up, position themselves as heavyweight spokesmen for 911 truth, and proceed to skew the discourse or guide it along paths they alone think it should take.

    You guys are doing a great job on these boards, imo. In keeping your side of the road clean and sticking to your strongest points and and keeping your critical faculties alive, you are doing well.

    I liked what Barrie Zwicker wrote a while back about keeping the TM 'leaderless' in a way. There is no need for one guru-like figure. The msm press like to create a figure and foist it on the TM - focussing on DR Griffin for example and calling him 'leader of the coven' (Alex C of Counterpunch?). Who ever elected him? The TM's biggest strength lies in the fact that it is organic and based on deep, universal values which require no Alpha Male leaders to channel them :-)

    Posted 16 years ago #
  5. emanuel
    Member

    I had countless conversations with Griffin, beginning even before his first book was published. The thing that first struck me as strange was his inability (or unwillingness) to entertain the notion that there may be a power above and beyond "the Bush Administration" who was responsible for 9/11. He was only capable of seeing the agent of action as the public face of government: the current executive branch in power. He dismissed any and all notions of a "shadow government" that transcends both parties and that operates secretively via boards within the military, the intelligence agencies, wall street, etc. Now I don't pretend to know any details on such a shadow government, and hence could not provide anyone with a "narrative" on who exactly makes decisions, how they get made, etc., but nonetheless, it is clear to me that such broader, secret organizations do exist and operate within and above the public face of government.

    I could never figure out why Griffin couldn't seem to "get" such a concept. It was like he was incapable of even understanding it. He couldn't even respond to the suggestion to deny believing it. This was a red flag for me, though I gave him the benefit of the doubt for years, thinking he was just an ivory-tower academic that had no real political experience, and was also stuck trying to (innocently?) provide a coherent "counter narrative" that the regular population could understand.

    After years of his refusal even to listen to common sense, I now doubt his sincerity.

    Emanuel

    Posted 16 years ago #
  6. truthmod
    Administrator

    This is as an important issue. Thanks for bringing it up and welcome to the board, critique.

    I can't tell you how many times people have asked me "So, what do you think happened?" I think it's almost universal, in this culture, that people want easy, static answers, not the truth, which is more of a process or evolution of discovery. If you say "Well, I don't really know exactly what happened, but here are some interesting facts," many people just lose interest.

    Of course, the majority of people dismiss us because of the narrative that has become equated with 9/11 skepticism, i.e. "The government was behind it." The horrible possibility of that narrative being true may also have been what made many of us dedicate countless hours to researching and understanding the history. Narratives are powerful. They can turn people on or off and they can be used for deception or enlightenment.

    It is true that almost whenever we are attacked, it is on speculation or narrative, not on substance. There is no getting around the fact that most of us believe that elements of the government facilitated 9/11 in some way, but we should put the strongest facts forward before a meta-narrative.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  7. critique
    Member

    I like 'process or evolution of discovery'. I read a poster's reply on a blog recently which said: "911 can be a good teacher if you allow it to be'.

    What has 911 taught me? - It's taught me to evaluate 'narrative' wherever I find it. Confronted with 'story' or wall-to-wall media coverage of some event I now ask, what does this mean? Who is saying this and why do they want me to hear this particular thing? Who benefits by having me take this particular narrative on board? Which part of this narrative is fact, which part fiction? - It's taught me patience. True awareness builds slowly. That's fine. - It's boosted my critical thinking (hopefully!) and some impulse control. I try to think things through slowly before replying in haste. - It's fast-tracked my education about the state of the media; the m.s.media is riddled with black holes or lacunae. What are journalists NOT talking about/looking at? The negative spaces reveal much.

    Anyhow, enough of the philosophy. I was happy to find Truthmove and Truthaction recently because they seem to offer some clear-headedness and respite from the dozens of dubious sites out there.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  8. mark
    Member

    These are among the best summaries that I've come across that point toward the larger narrative, although there are many others.

    9/11 research is a rabbit-hole of Byzantine complexity full of snares and delusions and peopled with false friends, lunatics, earnest lost souls and a few heroes. It's not necessary to understand all the nuances of science and bureaucracy that allowed the government to get away with mass murder, blame it on swarthy foreigners (of whom many are eager accomplices) and use the incident as (in the words of the Cheney, Jeb Bush et al cabal, the Project for a New American Century) "a new Pearl Harbor." At this critical juncture in human history, it's only necessary to understand why they did it. The motive was Peak Oil, a disaster which will affect everyone on the planet, about which all must enlighten themselves and for which all must prepare.

    Jenna Orkin, World Trade Center Environmental Organization

    http://mikeruppert.blogspot.com/2007/05/epa-whistl...

    Crossing the Rubicon: Simplifying the case against Dick Cheney

    by Michael Kane

    http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_s...

    Means - Dick Cheney and the Secret Service: Dick Cheney was running a completely separate chain of Command & Control via the Secret Service, assuring the paralysis of Air Force response on 9/11. The Secret Service has the technology to see the same radar screens the FAA sees in real time. They also have the legal authority and technological capability to take supreme command in cases of national emergency. Dick Cheney was the acting Commander in Chief on 9/11.

    Motive - Peak Oil: At some point between 2000 and 2007, world oil production reaches its peak; from that point on, every barrel of oil is going to be harder to find, more expensive to recover, and more valuable to those who recover and control it. Dick Cheney was well aware of the coming Peak Oil crisis at least as early as 1999, and 9/11 provided the pretext for the series of energy wars that Cheney stated, "will not end in our lifetime."

    Opportunity - 9/11 War Games: The Air Force was running multiple war games on the morning of 9/11 simulating hijackings over the continental United States that included (at least) one "live-fly" exercise as well as simulations that placed "false blips" on FAA radar screens. These war games eerily mirrored the real events of 9/11 to the point of the Air Force running drills involving hijacked aircraft as the 9/11 plot actually unfolded. The war games & terror drills played a critical role in ensuring no Air Force fighter jocks - who had trained their entire lives for this moment - would be able to prevent the attacks from succeeding. These exercises were under Dick Cheney's management.

    see also

    Connected Dots: Peak Oil, Climate, 9/11, World War, Homeland Security, Media, Fake Elections http://www.oilempire.us/dots.html

    Many of the "big names" in 9/11 "truth" don't talk about Peak Oil and most of the "big names" in Peak Oil awareness ignore 9/11 complicity.

    One of the best early voices for the 9/11 - Peak Oil connection has apparently stopped connecting the dots between them. Barrie Zwicker, whose film "The Great Deception" (2002) was the first documentary (and a very good one), went on to narrate the film "The End of Suburbia" (2004), perhaps the most popular documentary introducing Peak Oil issues. In 2005, his book "Towers of Deception" spent 400 pages examining the media coverage of 9/11 but avoided the 9/11 Peak Oil connection (and also ignored the media strategy of highlighting the false claims to avoid the best evidence).

    Posted 16 years ago #
  9. chrisc
    Member

    Many of the "big names" in 9/11 "truth" don't talk about Peak Oil and most of the "big names" in Peak Oil awareness ignore 9/11 complicity.

    Yep, Nafeez Ahmed is one of the few exceptions to this.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  10. truthmod
    Administrator

    Richard Heinberg, on the Peak Oil side, has at least put a small mention about his 9/11 skepticism in some of his books.

    I am immediately suspicious of any 9/11 "truther" who does not acknowledge the environmental crisis. Too many people think they're "enlightened" because they watched a couple DVDs and listen to Alex Jones every day. If you've "awakened" or "opened your mind" to 9/11 truth but you can't grasp the bigger picture of the insanity of infinite greed, infinite growth, and infinite exploitation, then you really don't have a grasp on reality.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  11. Diane
    Member

    truthmod wrote:

    I am immediately suspicious of any 9/11 "truther" who does not acknowledge the environmental crisis.

    I would say that such a person has a lot to learn. But I see no reason necessarily to be "suspicious" of such a person. Alas, there's an awful lot of anti-environmentalist propaganda out there, and, alas, an awful lot of people (especially an awful lot of conservatives/Republicans) have swallowed it. In particular, Alex Jones pushes anti-environmentalist positions. Hence it is hardly surprising that someone who was brought into the 9/11 Truth movement via the Alex Jones sector would fail to acknowledge the environmental crisis. Ditto for anyone who was brought into the 9/11 Truth movement by Webster Tarpley. (The Larouchites, too, are very anti-environmentalist.)

    Anyhow, you wrote the above in response to Mark's post, in which he wrote:

    Many of the "big names" in 9/11 "truth" don't talk about Peak Oil and most of the "big names" in Peak Oil awareness ignore 9/11 complicity.

    I should mention here that there's a difference between (1) not acknowledging the environmental crisis at all and (2) not saying that Peak Oil is the motive for 9/11. One can acknowledge the environmental crisis and believe that 9/11 was an inside job, yet still see something other than "Peak Oil" as the primary motive for 9/11 -- such as, perhaps, just plain garden-variety empire-building, out of sheer desire for world dominance, with control of oil being just one aspect of that.

    Furthermore, it seems to me that the primary aim of the 9/11 Truth movement should be to call for a new and more independent investigation of 9/11 -- and for more government accountability in general -- rather than to promote the theory that 9/11 was an inside job, let alone any specific theory about the motive for the inside job. In a post earlier in this thread, you seem to agree with me on this. As you wrote:

    It is true that almost whenever we are attacked, it is on speculation or narrative, not on substance. There is no getting around the fact that most of us believe that elements of the government facilitated 9/11 in some way, but we should put the strongest facts forward before a meta-narrative.

    If I've misunderstood you, could you please clarify?

    Posted 16 years ago #
  12. Diane
    Member

    critique wrote:

    I came into 911 truth by noticing the lacuna that surrounds discussion of 911 in the msm.

    Dig into almost any topic, and you'll probably find lots of important aspects that the mass media don't pay much if any attention to.

    For example, we hear a lot about Islamist terrorist groups, but not much about Christian theocratic terrorist groups, when in fact there have been plenty of the latter. For example, in Africa:

    Alongside the fast-growing churches have emerged apocalyptic and messianic movements that try to bring in the kingdom of God through armed violence. Some try to establish the thousand-year reign of Jesus Christ on earth, as prophesied in the Book of Revelation.

    [...]

    Extremist Christian movements have appeared regularly across parts of Africa where the mechanisms of the state are weak. They include groups such as the Lumpa Church, in Zambia, and the terrifying Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), in Uganda. In 2000 more than a thousand people in another Ugandan sect, the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God, perished in an apparent mass suicide. In each case a group emerged from orthodox roots and then gravitated toward apocalyptic fanaticism. The Ten Commandments sect grew out of orthodox Catholicism. The Lumpa Church began, in the 1950s, with Alice Lenshina, a Presbyterian convert who claimed to receive divine visions urging her to fight witchcraft. She became the lenshina, or queen, of her new church, whose name, Lumpa, means "better than all others." The group attracted a hundred thousand followers, who formed a utopian community in order to await the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Since it rejected worldly regimes to the point of refusing to pay taxes, the Lumpa became increasingly engaged in confrontations with the Zambian government, leading to open rebellion in the 1960s.

    Another prophetic Alice appeared in Uganda during the chaotic civil wars that swept that country in the 1980s. Alice Lakwena was a former Catholic whose visions led her to establish the Holy Spirit Mobile Force, also pledged to fight witches. She refused to accept the national peace settlement established under President Yoweri Museveni, and engaged in a holy war against his regime. Holy Spirit soldiers, many of them children and young teenagers, were ritually anointed with butter on the understanding that it would make them bulletproof. When Lakwena's army was crushed, in 1991, most of her followers merged with the LRA, which is notorious for filling its ranks by abducting children. Atrocities committed by the group include mass murder, rape, and forced cannibalism. Today as in the sixteenth century, an absolute conviction that one is fighting for God's cause makes moot the laws of war.

    The above quote is from The Next Christianity by Philip Jenkins, The Atlantic, February 2002.

    Speaking of Christian theocratic movements, another thing we've heard surprisingly little about in the mass media is the Christian theocratic movement that Sarah Palin belongs to - the "New Apostolic Reformation," also known as Third Wave neo-Pentecostalism, also known as "Joel's Army" - one of the fastest-growing Christian religious movements in the world. See:

    Why do the mass media fail to cover so many very important things? In some cases the avoidance is probably deliberate, to avoid offending major advertisers, etc. In other cases I would suspect just laziness and/or lack of budget for investigative reporting. In still other cases, I suspect an upper middle class cultural bias against the importance of certain topics -- such as a tendency to see "religious nuts" as just "losers" who couldn't possibly accomplish anything important, and who therefore aren't worthy of any attention besides an occasional giggle - except, of course, when they kill large numbers of Americans, or when focusing on them happens to serve the U.S. government's foreign policy agenda.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  13. truthmod
    Administrator

    Diane, please try to keep your posts on topic. The themes of narrative and environmental issues in relation to 9/11 truth both stem from the original post in this thread. Bringing in a huge new issue is distracting and unproductive.

    Dig into almost any topic, and you'll probably find lots of important aspects that the mass media don't pay much if any attention to.

    Bringing in an example of "almost any topic" is not a focused and effective conversation.

    If others want to continue this thread, I suggest that we get back the original core issues.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  14. critique
    Member

    I agree with you here, truthmod. If one is trying to keep discussion focused, it doesn't help to dissipate energy on any number of random topics. I find this site refreshing because it hones in on certain key issues and is not a distracting talk shop. Thanks for all replies and suggestions. I'll keep reading.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  15. Diane
    Member

    Okay -- I'll try to be more careful in the future about keeping threads on-topic.

    I agree with the main point raised by various people in this thread -- that we should focus on facts rather than on trying to construct a "counter-narrative."

    Posted 16 years ago #
  16. Arabesque
    Member

    RF: "What has not been established by the “9/11 Truth Movement” is a convincing counter-narrative – that is, an alternate version of the events that clears up to what degree, if at all, the attacks resulted from incompetence, deliberate inaction, and outright complicity."

    Here's your "convincing" narrative. 9/11 happened. No one was fired. Those most responsible for defending the country from attack got promotions. Insider Trading. Destruction of Evidence. Cover-up. 70% of family member questions unanswered by the commission. NORAD gives three contradictory timelines (i.e. "lies" about it's activities on 9/11).

    All of this is documented, on the record, and proven. There is no speculation here.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  17. mark
    Member

    Control of the oil is one of the primary ways that the empire maintains (or strives for) world domination, especially over Europe and Japan, which don't have their own sources of oil.

    In a desert, which way the water flows determines where food can grow. In the global industrial economy, oil and coal and natural gas and minerals and other resources determine where economic "growth" can occur.

    http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/070103_b... BEYOND BUSH by Michael Ruppert

    July 1, 2003 1600 PDT (FTW)

    Unless people find the will to address scandals, lies, and betrayals of trust that, by their very existence, reveal that the system itself is corrupt and that the people controlling it - both in government, and in America's corporations and financial institutions -- are criminals, there is no chance to make anything better, only an absolute certainty that things will get worse. .... There is only one difference between the evidence showing the Bush administration's criminal culpability in and foreknowledge of the attacks of 9/11, and the evidence showing that the administration deceived the American public about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Both sets of evidence are thoroughly documented. They are irrefutable and based upon government records and official statements and actions shown to be false, misleading or dishonest. And both sets of evidence are unimpeachable. The difference is that the evidence showing the Iraqi deception is being seriously and widely investigated by the mainstream press, and actively by an ever-increasing number of elected representatives. That's it.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  18. Diane
    Member

    Mark wrote:

    Control of the oil is one of the primary ways that the empire maintains (or strives for) world domination, especially over Europe and Japan, which don't have their own sources of oil.

    The above would be true regardless of whether or not we had a looming oil crisis. (Control of oil was a priority for the British empire back in the early-to-mid 1900's, when no one was worrying about oil shortages.) The looming oil crisis just makes it all the more true.

    That's why I'm inclined to see sheer empire-building, rather than "Peak Oil," as the primary motive in all too much of recent U.S. foreign policy. Oil does play a key role, but there would be empire-builders even if oil (or energy of any kind) were not an issue.

    There is only one difference between the evidence showing the Bush administration's criminal culpability in and foreknowledge of the attacks of 9/11, and the evidence showing that the administration deceived the American public about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Both sets of evidence are thoroughly documented. They are irrefutable and based upon government records and official statements and actions shown to be false, misleading or dishonest. And both sets of evidence are unimpeachable. The difference is that the evidence showing the Iraqi deception is being seriously and widely investigated by the mainstream press, and actively by an ever-increasing number of elected representatives. That's it.

    There is plenty of evidence of coverups regarding 9/11. But we're on less sure ground when we try to say what has been covered up.

    There is also plenty of evidence that various people in the U.S. government knew, or at least should have known, that a 9/11-like attack was coming. We're on less sure ground when we try to explain how/why that knowledge wasn't put together or acted upon.

    Arabesque wrote:

    Here's your "convincing" narrative. 9/11 happened. No one was fired. Those most responsible for defending the country from attack got promotions. Insider Trading. Destruction of Evidence. Cover-up. 70% of family member questions unanswered by the commission. NORAD gives three contradictory timelines (i.e. "lies" about it's activities on 9/11).

    This is a good summary of some of the issues that have not been adequately investigated. (I would add coverups of the possible roles of various foreign governments.) But it's not a "narrative" of what the U.S. government actually did that was covered up. It all strongly suggests that some people are guilty of something, but we don't yet know who is guilty of what.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  19. mark
    Member

    Control of the oil is much more important now than it was 100 years ago. Yes, imperialism is not a new thing, but Peak Oil means that global imperialism is profoundly different than it was before the nuclear era.

    He who has control over the oil now can dominate the global economy, especially as depletion starts to bite us all.

    They allowed 9/11 and assisted it to get the pretext to dominate the world's largest oil fields, although not all of the claims are true.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  20. emanuel
    Member

    Peak oil means that global imperialism is not just profoundly different that it was 100 years ago, but also that it is profoundly over. The entire plan to globalize the world economy and run it under a world government with the financial elite at the top; the "New World Order," as it is called, cannot continue without growth. Oil drove globalization and led to the rise of multinational corporations--replacing national governments--as the primary agents of action. The World Bank, the IMF, the WTO, etc., were the political vehicles to create this dream (or some say nightmare). The elites within the developed nations of the world were cooperating in this plan. Then peak oil became known to them, and the US was first to act, realizing the dream was over, that there could be no more New World Order without the energy to run it. And when this happens, power reverts back to geography, to nation-states, which are returning to their status as primary agents of action. Geographic lines are being draw again.

    Most definitely peak oil was the reason for 9/11. It was the reason for the first Gulf War. Why trick Saddam Hussein, a US ally against Iran, into invading Kuwait so you can bomb them to smithereens, if you aren't planning to invade them sometime afterwards, when the time is right (like after ten years of crippling sanctions and weekly bombing raids)? Read Nafeez Ahmed's book, "Behind the War on Terror." The plans to invade Iraq have been in place for decades, and Clinton played his role just fine. It happened because the US intelligence community realized that growth was going to stop, because no new energy source was close to being discovered, and the cooperation among the global elite in various countries to set up a unified world government were not going to come to fruition. Whichever country controls enough oil is going to survive much longer than the others.

    So my take is that 9/11 and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are not about empire building, but rather a consolidation of resources, realizing that the once great hope for a World empire is over.

    Emanuel

    Posted 16 years ago #
  21. chrisc
    Member

    Right, this is why it seems totally unconceivable that "the US will actually pull of of Iraq before it's been pumped dry" http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/1298?replies=...

    Posted 16 years ago #
  22. Victronix
    Member

    I read the Falk article and I'm not sure I'm in agreement. He does say in one paragraph early on the loaded set-up of narrative and counter-narrative, but later on he says --

    The persisting inability to resolve this fundamental controversy about 9/11 subtly taints the legitimacy of the American government. It can only be removed by a willingness, however belated, to reconstruct the truth of that day, and to reveal the story behind its prolonged suppression. What exactly that truth would be is certainly unknowable at present, and even an honest, collaborative effort might never altogether remove doubts. But that honest effort is just what should be demanded and expected by persons of good will everywhere.

    "Narrative" and how it works may just be a theme in his writings in general. He may have merely a weakness in wanting to see the story played out, the counter-narrative, without realizing the mess he walks into with that. The contradiction in the end -- admitting we may never know -- shows the mixed positions. He obviously isn't an "expert" but he gets what's going on. My guess is that he's just naive. Here's a paragraph from an article he wrote on Saddam --

    All in all, the outcome of this first trial against the Ba’athist regime of Saddam Hussein, should have been internationalized, or at the very least, waited until normalcy had been restored in Iraq. To convert this criminal process into a tool to vindicate the narrative of the Bush administration as to what was achieved in Iraq by the invasion and occupation was itself misguided even if the only audience was here in the United States. By now, even naïve America no longer listens when Washington claims that another milestone establishes progress in the war. As the milestones pile up, so do the bodies! http://transnational.org/SAJT/forum/meet/2006/Falk...

    Posted 16 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.