Surging to a new war

The American surge in Iraq is going nowhere. Sectarian violence may be down a bit in one place, but it goes up in another. Even the departing British military attaché Colonel Alastair Campbell admitted as much, to all-round embarrassment in London and Washington. (The Sunday Telegraph: US surge is failing, says UK's Iraq envoy)

According to dubious statistics, 1,500 civilians were killed in April. The true figure is no doubt much higher. Now, the U.S. occupiers say that if it could be brought down to 800, that would be a success. That's still much more than the murders Saddam Hussein ever accomplished – on average.

The White House says the surge cannot be evaluated before September. I'll tell you here and now – on the record – that the situation in September will be much worse than it is now, from the American's perspective. U.S. commanders are once again trying to devise a new strategy, exploring if they perhaps could work together with some insurgents to oppose other insurgents. This age old tactic of divide and rule will never work. Every Iraqi who collaborates with the U.S. occupiers will be hunted down and eliminated. The U.S. has found another dead-end street.

The Democrats are now even willing to fork out another 90 billion dollar to pay for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq without setting any withdrawal deadline. (CNN: Dems plan Iraq bill minus timeline but with benchmarks) They did set a few meaningless benchmarks, which the president can waive if he feels it's necessary. Senator Russ Feingold said it “allows the president to continue what may be the greatest foreign policy blunder in our nation's history.” Not only that, the Democrats are actively supporting and abetting war crimes committed by the Bush administration.

If this war can't be won, we'd better start another – perhaps we'll have more luck – is what the deranged mind of George W. Bush is dreaming of. So yesterday two aircraft carrier battle groups around the USS John C. Stennis and the USS Nimitz crossed the Strait of Hormuz and entered the Gulf, to support combat operations in Iraq, train a bit and of course to try to intimidate Iran on a day the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) declared that Iran is indeed continuing to enrich uranium. The Bush administration is once again spinning lies that the Iranian Islamic Republican Guards are working together with al-Qaeda to destabilize Iraq. “This story is the biggest load of crap,” commented Will Bunch in the New York Daily News.

The Guardian published it on its front page (Iran's secret plan for summer offensive to force US out of Iraq), but in the inner pages Dilip Hiro debunked it as another bunch of lies. (Briefing encounter) “A link-up between the virulently anti-Shia al-Qaida in Mesopotamia and the Iranians, even at a surreptitious level, is beyond belief.”

Still, the remaining neocons in the White House are pushing for another war of aggression, hoping in vain to win this time.

Blistering barnacles!

Today is the 100th birthday of one of the most remarkable creators of cartoon characters, Georges Remi, better known as Hergé. The intrepid Belgian reporter Tintin is known as Tintin in French and English, Kuifje in Dutch, Dingding in Chinese and many other names in altogether 70 languages.

The boy reporter first appeared in print in January 1929 with a bit of an anti-communist attitude visiting the Soviet Union. He raced through many adventures till 1983, when his creator died, after decreeing that no other cartoonist would continue to invent and design new Tintin books. On the one hand, this is unfortunate, because a capable successor could have created many more inspiring adventures, depicting Tintin at the keyboard of a laptop or talking on a cellphone. It was not to be. Hergé's heirs saw to it that Tintin would die together with his creator, but on the other hand also become immortal.

In her wildest dreams, Hergé's widow Fanny could not have imagined at her husband's funeral how popular Tintin would still be in 2007. And unlike Bush's, Tintin popularity is still rising, with Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson starting to work on new movies to be screened in 2009.

In one of the most popular episodes, The Blue Lotus, published in 1936, Tintin travels to China and steadfastly opposes the Japanese aggressors. During and after World War II, Hergé has been criticized for not opposing the Nazi occupation with the same vigor, as he continued working and publishing. That was no doubt a mistake, which nonetheless didn't affect his work, as millions today still enjoy and appreciate Tintin.

Three movies are in the planning stage, the first brick of a new Tintin museum has been laid and an exhibition is ongoing in Paris. Hergé could never have imagined such a lavish centennial. The Blue Lotus will flourish forever. (Tintin)

The white elephant embassy

Where is the United States building its biggest and most expensive embassy? London perhaps, the Capital of the Poodle, America's most steadfast ally? Nope. Moscow, to keep its erstwhile Cold War adversary under tight supervision? Nope. Beijing, the rising power in the East, which owns a large chunk of U.S Treasury bills and runs up America's largest trade deficit? No, once again.

The U.S. is building a 592 million dollar, 42 hectares, Vatican-sized embassy in ... Baghdad. (The Guardian: One building that's been built on time and on budget in Iraq: America's fortress embassy)

To future historians it will no doubt be known as the White Elephant Embassy. Pretty soon the U.S. military will be leaving Iraq, either forced out by the U.S. Congress or by the Iraqi resistance, but leave they will. The result will be that the American Vatican in the Green Zone will be a sitting duck, a defenseless white elephant waiting to be shot. Surely, the Iraqi army will not be able to defend the U.S. embassy. As a symbol of the U.S. occupation, it will be blown to pieces. 592 million dollar gone up in smoke. Never mind, the American contractors building the Vatican in the heart of a Muslim nation will report handsome profits to their shareholders.

27 buildings, housing 615 diplomats and support staff, wearing helmets and body armor, crouching behind sandbags. 592 million dollar wasted on a useless edifice, money which could have been used to build hospitals, schools and power stations for the suffering Iraqi people. Welcome to America's Greatest Embassy...

Love and revenge

The Sunday Times today publishes a gripping account of Abu Fahed, a loving Iraqi father of a three-year-old daughter Noor. Overcome by grief when his wife is killed by American snipers while taking their sick baby to hospital, he is determined to become a suicide bomber, hoping to kill as many Americans as possible. In the end he only manages to kill a few Iraqi police and innocent civilians, hoping his daughter will become the mother of brave sons, who will take part in the liberation of Baghdad. (Suicide revenge of the loving father)

First of all, it is an emotional story, because you feel sympathy for the father, but it also points to the limits of the Iraqi resistance in the absence of a unified and strong, determined leadership. Let's first quote a few passages from the story:

“On the evening of September 21, 2004, when Noor was approaching her first birthday, she fell ill. Her temperature rose so high that her parents thought she needed to go to hospital. The hospital was only just down the road. As [Ahlam, Noor's mother] walked in pitch darkness, someone must have mistaken the bundle in her arms for something more sinister than a sick child. There was a shot. Ahlam crumpled to the ground. Nobody could help her. She died where she lay.”

This is how the American occupiers are “winning hearts and minds”, murdering a mother carrying her sick baby to hospital, shooting first and not even bothering to asks any questions afterwards. Abu Fahed now only has a single aim in life: kill as many American soldiers as possible to avenge the death of his wife.

“The suicide bombers sent by insurgent groups that have never been identified drove up to their targets in cars packed with explosives. They blew up Iraqi police and civilians but no Americans. Abu Fahed’s dying wish for revenge evidently went unfulfilled.”

While the Iraqi police were perhaps not totally innocent as they prop up the regime of the occupiers, among the dead was a little three-year-old girl, just like Abu's own.

The Americans will never win in Iraq, no matter how many “surges” they execute, and no matter how many additional soldiers they sent, because they are creating new enemies every hour of every day. Honest men, whose only worry was how to feed their families, become suicide bombers, or terrorists as the Americans would call them.

But Abu's act of revenge missed its target, as no American soldiers were killed. Blind rage will only lead to more bloodshed. There is no leadership that protects the people and targets the root cause of Iraq's misery: the U.S. occupation. Compare this to the liberation struggle of the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese who were lucky to have the leadership of the Vietnamese Communist Party to guide their struggle.

In the absence of a capable leadership to guide them, the liberation struggle of the Iraqi people will be long and tortuous. But let's leave the last word to Abu Fahed when he addresses his daughter: "I want to meet you in heaven, God willing, as a mother of men who liberated Baghdad."

Abominable Blair

King Blair of Kut al Amara made a last farewell visit to Iraq, the country he helped to devastate to unimaginable proportions. After helping murder 700,000 innocent Iraqis, he had the temerity to make a last visit to Baghdad's Green Zone. When explosions rocked the last hide-out of the occupiers of the land of Babylon, he added insult to injury, saying: “there was progress. The question is, what are we going to do in the face of these attacks? The answer is, we don't give in to them.” (CNN: Blair says goodbye to Baghdad as daily blasts go off)

Yes, there is progress. The heroic resistance of the Iraqi people against the occupation is indeed making progress. As for the progress Blair is talking about, it can be compared to the progress Adolf Hitler, Hideki Toyo, Bennito Mussolini and other aggressors occasionally made. In the end, they were defeated, humiliated and crushed to dust. The same will happen to Bush, Blair and their puppet Iraqi government. “Not giving in”, will not save their skin. The rightful place of Bush and Blair is under the delete key. The peoples of the world are at the keyboard, not war criminals like Bush and Blair. It is the Iraqi people which will never “give in” to the aggression of American and British imperialism.

Asked how he would judge Blair's support of Bush, former U.S. president Jimmy Carter said: “Abominable. Loyal. Blind. Apparently subservient. And I think the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world.” In an interview with BBC Radio Carter continued: “One of the defenses of the Bush administration, in the American public and on a worldwide basis – and it's not been successful in my opinion – has been that, OK, we must be more correct in our actions than the world thinks because Great Britain is backing us. And so I think the combination of Bush and Blair giving their support to this tragedy in Iraq has strengthened the effort, and has made opposition less effective and has prolonged the war and increased the tragedy that has resulted.” (CNN: Carter: Blair-Bush ties 'tragic')

Blair expressed no regrets for his steadfast support of Bush's policy on Iraq. He is an unrepentant war criminal deserving the harshest punishment an international tribunal could impose. Let's repeat it for added emphasis: Blair = Abominable. Loyal. Blind. Apparently subservient. That's a nice summary of Blair's legacy, in the deepest, darkest, dirtiest place of the dustbin of history.

Departure of the Wolf

The Wolf is finally leaving through the back door, not running, but slowly sneaking out in search of his next victim. Never mind that Paul Wolfowitz will still be receiving his royal salary for another one and a half months as the sheepish lame duck president of the World Bank. And according to his contract – which he himself breached – he is still entitled to a full year's salary. That's how the World Bank is helping the poor!

This is indeed a messy shit-pool in which everybody involved lost a lot of face. It could have been avoided by not appointing Wolfowitz to head the World Bank in the first place, but of course George W. Bush is genetically predestined to only do stupid and criminal things and if possible at all, preferably stupidly criminal or criminally stupid things.

The World Bank's staff and most member countries of the World Bank opposed his nomination, but were to weak to prevent it. The staff could have walked out and the European governments could have launched a boycott, but they were too weak to do either. Now the World Bank's reputation is irredeemably damaged. As one of the two pillars (the other being the IMF) of the Capitalist World Order it is a good time to abolish it altogether, serving no other purpose but to pay extravagantly lavish salaries to bureaucrats, eating up ever more money that could have gone to the poor to help them help themselves. (The Wall Street Journal: World Bank Jobbery, Wolfowitz's Support Diminishes) (The Guardian: Angry Wolfowitz in four-letter tirade) (The Washington Post: World-Class Mess) (CNN: Wolfowitz to resign as World Bank chief) (Ther New York Times: For Wolfowitz, a 2nd Chance Dissolves Into Failure)

The Wolf implored the World Bank Board to be fair. As co-architect of the Iraq war, did he ever show an ounce of fairness to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis tortured and murdered as a result of what he started, following the mixing of a cocktail of lethal lies to justify the unjustifiable?

The World Bank Board should have fired Wolfowitz on the spot, but it allowed him to resign and continue to plunder the bank for another one and a half months. He totally and completely lost the trust of his staff as perhaps no CEO experienced before him. It is worth quoting from the World Bank Group Staff Association's statement: “While Mr. Wolfowitz has finally done the necessary thing by resigning, he has damaged the institution and continues to damage it every day that he remains as its president. He has demeaned the Bank, insulted the staff, diminished its clients, and dragged this institution through the mud. [The World Bank Board has] “attempted to save his face and in so doing have destroyed that of the institution that they are entrusted to protect.” Pretty strong stuff, actually Maotai-grade.

Now, his girlfriend Shaha Riza, who got the illegal pay rise so her salary exceeded that of her new boss Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, is also angry. Hypocrisy galore! The poor should be angry for the money spent in their names. Riza received a pay rise to USD193,000 – tax free – compared to Rice's USD186,000 before tax.

What will happen to Riza? Will she also be dismissed? Forced to pay back her ill-gotten money? She knew she was the recipient of an illegal pay rise orchestrated by her boyfriend and happily pocketed the money. Now she is acting like an innocent victim. What a shameless charade! A Muslim and a feminist? No, a deceptive outer shell, disguising an inner neocon core like her conservative Zionist boyfriend.

What will the Wolf do next? Quietly retire or prowl for another prey? Dismissed from the World Bank, is that it? War criminal Paul Wolfowitz should be dragged blind-folded in a orange coverall to stand trial in an International War Crimes Tribunal. And Shaha Riza should be put in the cell next door, accused of consorting with a war criminal, condoning mass murder and stealing from the poor.

Korea's beating heart

History was being written today along the heavily fortified Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) separating the two Koreas. For the first time since 1951, two trains crossed from the North to the South and from the South to the North, carrying altogether 150 passengers in a symbolic trip of 25 kilometers one way. South Korea had to pay 80 million dollar the North to make it happen and for now it was only a one-off event. Regular passenger and cargo services crossing the DMZ are still some way off in the future. (CNN: Koreas make tracks toward peace)

The South Koreans would love to send trains across their North Korean neighbor to link up with the Trans-Siberian railroad in Russia or China, because by rail the time it takes cargo to reach Europe would be shortened considerably compared to a long sea voyage.

Symbolic or not, South Korea's Unification Minister Lee Jae-joung was ecstatic, saying “It is not simply a test run. It means reconnecting the severed bloodline of our people. It means that the heart of the Korean peninsula is beating again.” The now 80-year old Han Chun-ki was a conductor on the last train crossing the area in 1951. “I never thought this day would come,” he commented.

Well, it did. “Stuff happens”, Rumsfeld would say. Only this time, it's good stuff, and the Americans had nothing to do with it.

Safe haven for terrorists

The concept of 'terrorism' and 'terrorists' is meaningless. You have people fighting for a worthy cause and people fighting to exploit and oppress other people. Both fight with the arms they can get, and if they are passionate enough, will not leave any options of the table. If you make an omelet, eggs will be crushed. If you fight in conflicts, insurgencies and wars, innocents will die as 'collateral damage'. Terrorists are supposed to be those who deliberately target innocent civilians, while when the 'good guys' kill innocents, it's only because “stuff happens”.

If you only count the killed innocents, Bush sure as Hell is a bigger terrorist than Osama Bin Laden. The same Bush who said he would make no distinction between the 'terrorists' and the governments who harbor them and promptly sent his storm troopers to topple the Taliban government in Afghanistan and put his own puppet – Hamid Karzai – on the throne.

By that same logic it is now OK to topple the U.S. government, as Bush himself is harboring a notorious terrorist. In October 1976, Luis Posada Carriles blew up a Cuban airliner over the Caribbean, killing 73 people. Both Cuba and Venezuela are requesting his extradition. In fact, he was sentenced and jailed in Venezuela – that's before the Chavez era – before he disappeared and turned up in the U.S. The American government has the power to detain Posada Carriles indefinitely under the Patriot Act or to extradite him to Venezuela, where the bombed plane started its fateful flight. But because Carriles is anti-Castro, the U.S. is protecting him.

Hundreds of 'terrorists' are incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay, without having been charged or tried in a court of law, and a convicted criminal walks free in the streets of Miami. Either there are no 'terrorists' in this world or the U.S. government is harboring one (and probably many more). It's an easy vote: yes or no? (Granma: Posada and US on Public Trial in Cuba) (The Guardian: To fry the smallest fish)

About censorship

American media are constantly lambasting China for censoring the internet. They do have a point: BBC News and Wikipedia, to name just two websites, are still unavailable in China, unless you enter through the back door. I will never condone censorship, because it's stupid. Chairman Mao was also opposed to censorship. Revolutionary ideas can never grow and prosper isolated and protected in a greenhouse. They can only grow and thrive in a live-and-death struggle against counter-revolutionary ideas. Censoring counter-revolutionary ideas doesn't do the Revolution any good. Yes, there was a lot of censorship in Mao's time, because the censors didn't understand Mao's thinking.

Some idiots will no doubt argue that the United States is the paradise of free speech. Think again, the U.S. military blocked access on the Pentagon's web servers to websites including YouTube and MySpace. Why? Because soldiers with their boots on the ground in Iraq might divulge military secrets. Yes, perhaps they could. But only soldiers using computers in internet cafes linked to the Pentagon's network are blocked from accessing those websites. Those with their own laptops and access to a commercial internet service provider can still access the banned sites. This is called discrimination and moreover exposes the Pentagon's lie that the military is worried about security. (The Times: Troops lose video link with home as Army puts a block on MySpace, Blogs of war win gunner top prize)

Poor soldiers are banned from telling military secrets online; the richer, with their own laptops and commercial internet access, may still do so. This is called stupid censorship. It is affecting morale among the rank-and-file occupation troops in Iraq. From the American point of view, that's a really stupid outcome. But maybe it's good for the resistance :-)

A war criminal speaks

L. Paul Bremer was vice-roy of Iraq from May 2003 to June 2004. He barred all Bath Party members from public life and disbanded the Iraqi Army. No, he is not the worst of the war criminals. This distinction has to be reserved for the likes of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. But his decisions as Supreme Ruler of Iraq sure made things worse for the Iraqi people, and come to think of it, also for the American occupiers. And now the Washington Post offers this criminal an opportunity to defend his “honor”. (The Washington Post: What We Got Right in Iraq)

He says only 1% of Baath Party members were affected by his decree, while everybody knows it was 99%. He compares the Baath Party to the Nazi Party. “Every Iraqi neighborhood had a party cell”, he writes. You can also argue that every American neighborhood has a Republican Party cell where Karl Rove is riding roughshod over every political opponent. Bremer also disbanded the Iraqi Army, creating the nucleus of the Sunni insurgency, with hundreds of thousands of soldiers without pay and angry at the Americans.

“In the 1980s, it waged a genocidal war against Iraq's minority Kurds,” Bremer writes. It sure did, at a time when Donald Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad to offer Saddam America's goodwill.

Bremer is being blasted for his incompetence and Nazi-dictator attitude not only by the Democrats, but also by many Republicans. Why is the Washington Post giving this criminal a place to voice his lies? Did the Washington Post ever give any opportunity to the 650,000 murdered Iraqis or their family members to write even one sentence in its blood-stained pages?

Bremer is a war criminal who should be on death row, not writing lies on the pages of a “respectable” newspaper.

No Long March...

The World Food Program of the U.N. organized a yearly walk on May 13 in several countries around the world to “End Child Hunger by 2015”, a very lofty aim if there ever was one.

A walk was also planned in Beijing, with marchers gathering in the Beijing World Park. But people had to register in advance AND the registration limit was set at 1,000. Well, 30,000 turned up and the police canceled the walk for safety reasons.

What is so frightening about 30,000 people marching? The Beijing Public Security Bureau is still afraid of mass gatherings, because they want to be in the majority. Five policemen for every marcher so everything can be controlled.

Flashback to the Cultural Revolution: one million Red Guards saluting Chairman Mao in Tiananmen Square! Today, the authorities cannot even control a march of 30,000 people! Are they afraid of the power of the masses? Have they forgotten Chairman Mao's words “Follow the mass line”? Why only allow 1,000 people to march to protest the fact that millions of children are still hungry today, at a time when Bush wants to turn grain into petrol so the U.S. will become less dependent on a Middle East he himself set aflame?

The Chinese authorities are kowtowing to the God of Calm. They are afraid to tolerate a little protest.

Out of chaos, order will emerge, but without chaos, there can only be a false impression of calm. When will Beijing see another march of a million?

The white tie

This topic is a bit outdated, but had to queue for more important issues to be addressed first. Still, let's give this a try, because for once – yes just this once – and only on this very particular topic – I agree with (hold your breath...) George W. Bush! Yes, weird things do happen in this world...

Our favorite Texas cowboy was horrified when wife Laura gently told him he had to don the full regalia of a top-of-the-bill gala dinner on the occasion of the visit of Britain's Majesty Queen Elisabeth II to the White House. Now I had heard about a black-tie dinner (horrible enough), but this was to be a white-tie dinner. Gosh, I had to turn to Wikipedia to find out what this thing was all about. Well, more starched this and that and a white thing elaborately strangling your neck. You can check it out for yourself. (CNN: Bush to host Queen Elizabeth at white-tie dinner)

By now, you know I am an ardent opponent of any “dress code” whatsoever. Let freedom reign. Let everybody wear whatever he or she likes or even wear nothing at all... My personal favorites are: a Mao jacket, Kim Jong-Il's bomber jacket or Fidel's battle dress. And yes, a checkered shirt and jeans.

So, this once, I sympathized with George W. Bush. Although, of course, he shouldn't be hosting white-tie dinners at the White House, but should be on death row at an International War Crimes Tribunal, but that's besides the point in this case.

Because in this case the Queen was plain wrong. As a guest in the U.S. who the Hell she thinks she is forcing the president to wear a ridiculous outfit just to please her? Of course, George Bush blew it by winking at her and getting his anniversary dates wrong. But nobody, not even a war criminal, should be subjected to the torture of a white-tie dinner.

As for Queen Elisabeth II: “God Save The Queen, she ain't no human being, she made you a moron” (Copyright: The Sex Pistols)

Whistle blowers wronged

While Tony Blair still thinks he's basking in the limelight following his announced departure from 10 Downing Street, two courageous men have been convicted to jail terms, not because they broke any laws, but because they exposed the lies, the spin, the duplicity of Blair and his subservience to the White House.

David Keogh (50) was sentenced to six months in prison for copying a secret 4-page document detailing discussions in April 2004 between Tony Blair and George Bush, who notoriously proposed to bomb the headquarters of the Al-Jazeera TV station in Qatar because he didn't like their reporting. Keogh passed the memo to Leo O'Connor (44), who was sentenced to three months in jail. Both men were convicted for breaching Britain's Official Secrets Act. Keogh was a cabinet office communications officer, O'Connor a researcher for Labour MP Tony Clarke, who eventually returned the memo to Blair.

Every country has its secrets act, protecting state secrets from its enemies. Fair enough. But in each and every case of a breach of the law, one has to ask the question: who benefits and who loses out.

In this particular case, the two defendants were shocked by the warmongering nonsense they discovered in the conversation between two war criminals and decided that they could not remain silent and thereby be accessories to mass murder. In the higher interest of their country, they decided to act. Bush and Blair were left standing naked for all the world to see their true colors: criminals planning war, aggression and crimes against humanity.

Because Blair lost his (ugly) face, two whistle blowers face jail. Far from endangering British troops, their actions could have saved their lives and the lives of hundreds if not thousands of Iraqi civilians killed by the British aggressors.

Keogh and O'Connor served their country well and now they face jail. They can still appeal and they deserve our support. It is judge Richard Aikens who should be arrested and brought to justice for illegally persecuting a whistle blower and shielding the reputation of a war criminal.

We'll leave the last word to David Keogh: “It was to help my country”. (CNN: Jail for Blair-Bush memo leak man); (The Independent: Men who tried to leak Bush memo jailed); (The New York Times: 2 Convicted of Leaking Memo on Bush-Blair Talk).

The B-liar years: 1997 – 2007

British prime minister Tony Blair finally announced that he will resign on June 27. How hopefully it all began ten years ago! The British were tired of John Major's Tory leadership and voted for change. Tony Blair promised to usher in a new era, the era of New Labour, socialist but modern. Blair went on to win two more elections, to become Bush's poodle and drag Great Britain into the illegal, genocidal and destructive Iraq War. The young, dynamic and promising man of ten years ago became a grizzled war criminal, spinning and lying to justify the unjustifiable and finally getting embroiled in corruption scandals.

The British people's hopes turned to cynicism. They will be happy to get rid of Tony Blair. He went from being one of the most popular British prime ministers to become one of the least popular. That is the legacy he is leaving.

Will his successor, Gordon Brown, do anything to forthwith end British involvement in the Iraq war? After all, Brown was part of the government which sent British boys and gals into losing battles in Afghanistan and Iraq and praised Blair's “unique achievement over 10 years and the unique leadership he had given to the party, Britain and the world”. Yeah, right... Britain will get more of the same and Britain deserves better.

Blair boosted about what he had achieved in Britain: “more jobs; fewer unemployed; better health and education results; lower crime; and economic growth in every quarter”. Even if that would indeed be true, if you go out to destroy another country, thousands of kilometers away, whatever achievements you may have in your own is worth nothing. The British ambassador to Washington once told the BBC's Matt Frei “that if he wanted to, the prime minister could veto this war”. Well, he didn't. And so he should be held responsible for the consequences.

And there is still the injustice that Blair will go on to write his memoirs, cashing in hundreds of thousands of pounds and perhaps live happily ever after, while the people of Iraq are still being murdered thanks to his policies. Tony Blair is a despicable war criminal. He should be brought to justice. Until he faces an international war crimes tribunal and is duly convicted for his immeasurable crimes against humanity, the Blair Era is not over yet.

While this war criminal basks in the limelight, a British judge sent a real hero, David Keogh, to jail. We'll come back to his story tomorrow, as villain Blair and hero Keogh shouldn't be mixed up in one story. The villains go free and the heroes end up in jail: what a wonderful world we live in...

“Hand on heart, I did what I thought was right,” Blair crowed. No, Blair, you were wrong, and not only wrong – you have oceans of blood on your hands. “I came into office with high hopes for Britain's future, and I leave it with even higher hopes for Britain's future,” he continued. With criminals like you at the helm, there is no future for Britain. Remember the lyrics of the Sex Pistols' song: “NO FUTURE, no future for you...” (CNN: Disillusionment after Blair decade) (The Independent: 27 June: Blair sets departure date)

Door closed to the Dalai Lama

The Belgian government has communicated to the Dalai Lama the opinion of the Chinese government that a planned visit by the Dalai Lama to Belgium could possibly spoil the atmosphere of the upcoming Belgian trade mission to China in June headed by His Royal Highness Prince Philip. Two immediate results merit attention:
+ The Dalai Lama cancels his trip, because he doesn't want to cause any trouble to the Belgian government.
+ The Belgian government says he is still most welcome at any time.

Another consequence is a media storm about the Belgian government capitulating to Chinese pressure in order to save business contracts. This is utter nonsense. Even if the Dalai Lama would have visited Belgium in the coming days, no Belgian company would have been denied a lucrative contract. But Prince Philip could perhaps during his upcoming visit in June have been subjected to the horrible torture of having to answer a polite question by the Chinese government about the visit to Belgium of the Dalai Lama. This would of course have far surpassed the IQ-level of the Belgian prince, who has no clue whatsoever about an answer to the question.

The only reason the Belgian government doesn't want the Dalai Lama to visit Belgium is to avoid any embarrassing questions which the Chinese government could possibly fire at a prince too stupid to understand a (beep) shit.

Having said that, there is another question still unanswered. Should the Dalai Lama visit Belgium or run around all over the world, preaching not only his religion, but also his separatist politics? If he really wants to go down in history as a great spiritual and temporal leader he should agree to the basic preconditions of the Chinese government: Tibet and Taiwan are an inseparable part of China. That shouldn't be too difficult to do. The Chinese government is keeping the door open if the Dalai Lama renounces separatism. He could then return to Lhasa and make further contributions to the development of Tibet.

Tibetan independence – apart from any other considerations – is not viable. The only readily available resource to generate income is tourism. If you open the gates of Tibet too wide, nothing of the Tibetan culture the Dalai Lama professes to defend will be left. Tibet will be swamped by McDonald's and Starbucks. Who needs a Zionist Starbucks outpost on the roof of the Potala Palace?

The Chinese government stands accused of restricting the freedom of speech. But those who say they are defending the freedom of speech are themselves denying the Chinese government to express its opinion.

A storm brewed up to shield a prince who is to stupid to open doors – even the doors of the toilets.

“Utter nonsense”

A Russian teacher was fined half his monthly wage for using pirated copies of Microsoft's Windows operating system and office suite. The suit was brought to court, not by Microsoft, but by Russian prosecutors. President Vladimir Putin called it “utter nonsense”. (CNN: Teacher fined for Microsoft piracy)

Russin TV portrayed Alexander Ponosov as a hero and former president Michael Gorbachev reportedly asked Microsoft chairman Bill Gates to pardon the Russian teacher.

There is an easy and convenient way to avoid this kind of shit. Dump Microsoft's Windows, the real one and the pirated one, and switch to Linux. There are more than 500 different versions of the Linux operating system. One flavor will certainly suit your hardware and your personality.

Yes, dear Vladimir, Microsoft is “utter nonsense”. Just dump it.

C'est Sarko!

The French have chosen and the result is 53% for Nicolas Sarkozy and 47% for Ségolène Royal. They voted in droves, at a seldom seen participation rate of 85%. The difference between the two candidates of 6 percentage points is at least wider than the margin Bush used to squeeze into the presidency – twice. Still, like the Americans, the French will soon come to regret their choice. Once, a long long time ago, the voting Americans voted 50-50 for Bush. The popularity of the liar-in-chief has now plummeted to 28% and no doubt will be plummeting further to reach the depths of his brother-in-arms Ehud Olmert.

Would Ségo have been a better choice? Yes, for France's economy. Sarkozy will push the economy further into crisis with his Thatcherite medicine. Yes, for social peace. Sarkozy will charge ahead like a bull, antagonizing all immigrants – although he himself is the son of one – and lead France to the breaking point. Yes, violence will erupt, although it was probably not very clever for Ségo to predict it would...

As already mentioned, the world at large was conspicuously absent from the debate between Sarko and Ségo. Ségo put too much water in her (French) wine to please the centrist voters, taking an even more hawkish stand on Iran for example than Sarkozy. But while Sarkozy is likely to follow Bush's lead and possibly draw France into a war with Iran, Ségo – despite her rhetoric – would probably have retreated at the last moment, realizing that a Left-wing president couldn't stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the evil American Empire. While Sarko declared that “France will always be next to them [his American friends] when they need us”.

Now the gloves are off. What is Sarkozy going to change? One conservative president (Chirac) substituted for another (Sarkozy)? There will be no change, apart from the fact that Chirac stood up to Bush, while Sarkozy won't. Sarkozy, far from giving France back its pride, will lead the country along a ruinous path.

No, the voters are not always right. Just ask the Americans.

(CNN: Sarkozy: I have mandate for change); (France 24: Nicolas Sarkozy élu président de la République); (The Guardian: A sharp right turn); (The Independent: M. Sarkozy – a divisive force whose task is to unite).

Move On

MoveOn.org is launching a petition to demand that the U.S. Congress stands firm on Bush's veto of a resolution, requiring a deadline for American troops to leave Iraq.

“We demand that Congress stand (sic) firm against the veto, and include a deadline to end the war in the bill it sends back to the president. No more blank checks for war,” the petition says.

Still, the Democrats are capitulating in the face of the war-monger-in-chief. They are likely to vote for war credits without any deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. It is not Bush who is capitulating, it is the Democrat Party... They will lose the trust of those brave and intelligent Americans who oppose the Bush Dictatorship. Opposition to Bush and the Democrats will grow, and the Democrats will lose control. Watering down is no option.

Let's hope MoveOn can make a difference. And if it doesn't, the American people will choose a more radical movement to chase Bush from the White House.

“The tree may prefer calm...”

“... but the wind will not subside.” Those are the words of Chairman Mao, which accurately describe the present situation in Iraq. The people of Iraq would certainly appreciate a bit of calm. Even the American occupiers would by new prefer a calm environment to swallow their McDonald's hamburgs in their fortified military bases. Still, the wind will not subside as long as the American occupiers stay in Iraq.

Sadly, the Chinese minister of foreign affairs Yang Jiechi seems to have forgotten the wise words of Chairman Mao. “China hoped Iraq could achieve stability and development as soon as possible”, he told the Iraq conference at Sharm el-Sheik. Well of course, but who is preventing stability and development if not the U.S. army? (People's Daily:People's Daily: China hopes Iraq achieves stability as soon as possible: FM; China's FM says maintaining unity most important task for Iraq)

“China supported efforts to safeguard Iraq's sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity.” Sure, who is violating Iraq's sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity? Forget about the foreign jihadists crossing Iraq's borders. They will stop going there the moment the U.S. leaves Iraq, because they will have to go elsewhere to strike at their enemy.

“Iraq welcomed the participation in Iraq's reconstruction project by more Chinese companies,” Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Maliki told Yang. No doubt, but as long as the U.S. troops stay in Iraq, there can only be destruction, no reconstruction.

“Unity, stability and development are three major tasks we face in addressing the Iraqi issue,” continued Yang. Yes, and none of those three tasks will ever be achieved as long as the Americans are actively preventing unity, stability and development.

Words about a “political settlement”, an “integrated approach” and “reconciliation” will remain empty words until the last American its lifted in a Blackhawk helicopter from the collapsed roofs of the Green Zone.

The Chinese government plans to forgive all debts owed by the Iraqi government. If Dick Cheney and his gang of thieves wouldn't have plundered Iraq, there would have been no need to forgive any debts. Why does China have to pay to help fill the bottomless pit created by Cheney?

Not one word of condemnation of the American occupation crossed Yang Jiechi's lips. The Chinese have got it completely wrong. And the reason is simple: they forgot the wise words of Chairman Mao.

The tallest... Tianning Pagoda

Amid all the shit in the world, the French elections, climate disasters, bombs built into an Iraqi school, an 18-year old girl brutally murdered in Belgium,... let's return for a moment of reflection to the top story of our China Pagoda. The tallest pagoda in China was inaugurated earlier this week in Changzhou, Jiangsu province.

The 154 meter high Tianning Pagoda has 13 stories topped by a golden pinnacle. The temple in whose grounds the pagoda stands has been rebuilt five times over the last 1,350 years. Rebuilding the pagoda took five years and cost 300 million yuan.

But it was all worthwhile as more than 100 heads of Buddhist associations and temples in China and around the world attended the ceremony. We have a new vantage point, higher than ever, to observe what's going on in China and the world beyond.

Sarko ou Ségo (II)

Yesterday the two rivals vying for the French presidency squared off in a televised debate. I didn't watch, but I printed out the transcript of the debate in French (Libération: La transcription exhaustive du débat) Perhaps it's a waste op paper... 48 pages... Anyway, read on...

Reading the transcript has some advantages. You can focus on the content without being distracted by emotional outbursts or the pretty face of Ségo. So let's focus on the ideas and ideology of the two contestants.

An inordinate amount of time was wasted on the 35 hour week. This issue has been settled once and for all 150 years ago by an old friend of mine, Karl Marx. Both of them, Ségo et Sarko were of course blissfully ignorant of the Marxist classics. They'd better return to primary school in Marxism before uttering any more nonsense.

The obscure discussion of the 5th or the 6th republic is irrelevant. Talking about immigrants, Sarkozy should really shut up. Son of an Hungarian immigrant, he got through the door and now wants to close it with a “clack” for anybody else. Either you open the doors of France to immigrants and Sarkozy gets a chance to become president, or you don't and Sarkozy is off-line. If he closes the door to immigrants, he is closing the door to himself. Period. Disqualified.

Sarkozy wants to close the door to products imported from countries which don't respect the Kyoto protocol. All right, block all imports from the U.S.? Truth or dare?

Sarkozy doesn't want Turkey in the EU because it's a county of Asia Minor. A stupid boundary! I bet he would like to have Israel as a member of the EU. And Ségo would probably agree. Do we need to say more?

Really disgusting is that Royal is even more hawkish on Iran than Sarkozy. She wants to block Iran from enriching uranium for peaceful purposes, thereby violating international laws. She wants to be more strict than Sarkozy. Vying to be the lap dog of Bush! Not one word was “wasted” on Iraq. Not one word of condemnation of Bush, the war criminal. On Darfur, Royal wants to put pressure on China, threatening a boycott of the 2008 Olympics, although not endorsing a boycott... What kind of shit is this? Interference by the “international community” or the “West” in Darfur won't solve anything. It can only make things worse. The “West” wants to crush the “Islamists”. Do we need another ill advised interference? Remember Iraq?

“Non” to Sarkozy, “non” to Royal... there's only one word the French need to remember on May 6.

2Bs 4 & 10 years ago

Yesterday, George W. Bush and Tony Blair "celebrated" their own peculiar holiday. Certainly not the glorious Workers' Day of May 1. Rather a day they will remember with mixed feelings.

Four years ago, the American president piloted a jet fighter to land on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. Under a giant banner reading "Mission Accomplished", he proclaimed "major combat operations over". At that time less than 140 American soldiers had died in the Iraq War. Today – four years after the end of combat operations – the number is 3,350 and counting. In April, 104 U.S. soldiers died. And four year after the end of combat operations, Bush vetoes a bill setting a deadline for withdrawal of U.S. troops. Four years after the end of combat operations, there are more troops in Iraq than ever. Nobody will be surprised that Bush is switching black and white again. According to Bush, “setting a deadline would demoralize the Iraqi people ... is a deadline for failure”. On the contrary, the first step to solve the Iraq mess is the withdrawal of the U.S. occupiers. Only when the mission of withdrawal is accomplished will the U.S. no longer be defeated day by day in the deserts, on the markets and in the backstreets of Iraq. It is not U.S. failure that is unacceptable to the civilized world, but the U.S. occupation itself.

Another infamous character, British PM Tony Blair, will remember the May 1st ten years ago when he celebrated his election victory. The British people voted for change after years of the Tory Major government. They hoped Blair would change Britain for the better. Now we know he will be remembered for blindly following Bush into the Iraqi quagmire. 69% of the British public believe he will be remembered most for the Iraq war.

Both Bush and Blair will go into history as – hopefully – the biggest war criminals of the 21st century. Some kind of accomplishment! (The Baltimore Sun: Wishin' accomplished)

The Shadow Army

“Who Will Stop the US Shadow Army in Iraq?”, Jeremy Scahill asks on TomDispatch.com and TruthOut.com. In addition to the 145,000 active duty U.S. forces in Iraq, there are an estimated 126,000 private military “contractors”, employed by companies such as Blackwater, Halliburton and Halliburton's subsidiary KBR. Many of them earn much more than the U.S. soldiers or even the Secretary of Defense. “We got 126,000 contractors over there, some of them making more than the secretary of Defense,” said House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha. “How in the hell do you justify that?”

“House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Henry Waxman estimates that US$4 billion in taxpayer money has so far been spent in Iraq on these armed “security” companies like Blackwater – with tens of billions more going to other war companies like KBR and Fluor for “logistical” support. Rep. Jan Schakowsky of the House Intelligence Committee believes that up to forty cents of every dollar spent on the occupation has gone to war contractors.”

We know – or at least we think we know – how many American soldiers have died in Iraq, with the media publishing a daily running total, but it is far from clear how many contractors have died. CNN keeps on repeating like a stupid parrot that 7 contractors have so far been died in Iraq. This is a pure lie. If you don't know, at least say you don't know, instead of misleading the world. According to Scahill and the Baltimore Sun, “ although contractor deaths are not effectively tallied, at least 770 contractors have been killed in Iraq and at least another 7,700 injured.”

Finally, there is the question of accountability. These contractors can murder with impunity without ever being held accountable in a court of law. Scahill continues: “While dozens of American soldiers have been court-martialed – 64 on murder-related charges – not a single armed contractor has been prosecuted for a crime against an Iraqi. In some cases, where contractors were alleged to have been involved in crimes or deadly incidents, their companies whisked them out of Iraq to safety.” One armed contractor recently told the Washington Post, “We were always told, from the very beginning, if for some reason something happened and the Iraqis were trying to prosecute us, they would put you in the back of a car and sneak you out of the country in the middle of the night.” According to another, U.S. contractors in Iraq had their own motto: “What happens here today, stays here today.”

The private contractors are not subject to the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice, the U.S. civilian courts and certainly not the Iraqi courts. They are a brutal shadow army of killers accountable to nobody.

Not only the U.S. army should leave Iraq immediately, this illegal mercenary army must also be withdrawn – and forthwith sent to an international war crimes tribunal.

Learn more about Blackwater in Jeremy Scahill's book “Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army”.

The interference dilemma

Last week, nine Chinese workers and 65 Ethiopians were killed in the Ethiopian region of Ogaden during an attack by the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) on Ethiopian soldiers guarding an oilfield operated by the Zhongyuan Petroleum Exploration Bureau, a subsidiary of Sinopec. Seven other Chinese workers were held by the ONLF, but have been released in the meantime.

China's foreign policy is clear: China recognizes states and their recognized government and does not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. If in a country a new government comes to power, by elections or otherwise, the Chinese government will recognize it as legitimate and express the hope that under the new government, friendly and cooperative relations will be further expanded. This also means that China does not recognize separatist movements even dough they could have legitimate claims.

The Ogaden National Liberation Front says it does not recognize agreements between the Ethiopian government and foreign companies to explore for oil in the area in which is fights for independence.

Sinopec has already announced that the tragedy will not lead it to abandon its projects. On the other hand, the government of a state where it does business – in this case Ethiopia – may not have the resources to protect foreign workers and projects. It is also inconceivable that China would send its own armed security personnel.

This poses a dilemma for China: risk the lives of its workers or try to work out a deal with separatist movements. Both possibilities questionable. (The Financial Times: Attack may spur Beijing toward assertiveness)

Revenge of the CIA chief

Tomorrow, James Tenet's book “At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA” will be available at Amazon.com. Only the happy few, who were lucky to get hold of an advance copy, are entitled to comment, and I am not one of them. I'll order the book tomorrow and hopefully be able to read it in a fortnight or so. Even so, in the past few days, stories have been turning up all over the media web about Tenet's disgust of Bush's spin to invade Iraq.

(The Times: Washington awaits a CIA chief's revenge) (The Independent: Ex-head of CIA accuses Bush over rush to war) (The New York Times: Ex-C.I.A. Chief, in Book, Assails Cheney on Iraq, Former C.I.A. Chief’s Memoir Irritates Some High-Ranking Readers) (The Washington Post: Tenet Details Efforts to Justify Invading Iraq)

Tenet's critique came too late, but better late than never. He should have attacked Bush's lies while still director of the CIA and thereafter promptly have submitted resignation. He didn't do that. Publishing a book exactly four years after “Mission Accomplished” is a bit tardy. Everybody with a few brain cells left knows by now that Bush is a liar and a war criminal. Who needs Tenet to tells us? Now he tells us there was no “slam dunk” evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Why didn't he pull Colin Powell's sleeve at the U.N. Security Council meeting in 2003?

Tenet waited to say the obvious till the obvious was obvious to anybody, with a few exceptions such as Bush and Blair. Still, let's read what he has to say. If it can damage Bush, Tenet may only end up in the first stage of Hell.

Webb on anti-Americanism (II)

Still according to Webb of the BBC, people in the Middle East don't hate America for what it does, but “because they fear the universality of its message, the power of the idea of individual liberty, or religious liberty”. Now this is pure racism on the part of Webb, because he considers the peoples of the Middle East to be too stupid to value individualism and religious liberty. The individualism of the U.S. is the individualism of the exploiters. Ask the workers of the U.S. and the workers in the countries under U.S. domination how they enjoy their “individualism”?

As for religious liberty, try to say out loud in the U.S. that you are an atheist, that you don't believe in any God, the reaction won't be much different from the ones in Saudi Arabia or Iran. It is in Europe, and yes in France – so despised by Webb – that there is freedom of religion, the freedom to be free of religion – the opium of the people. What's the difference if you can't get a beer in Salt Lake City or Mecca? As far as religious “freedom” is concerned, the U.S. has no lessons to teach to Muslim countries. Feudalist practices of oppression of women for example will be done away with by the peoples of the countries where they still exist. They don't need any help from the American imperialists who are creating hundreds of widows daily in Iraq.

Even Webb finally has to confess that “American attitudes to social and sexual matters have much more in common with thinking in Damascus than Paris”.

Webb descend into the depths of stupidity when he writes that most of the people of the U.S. “genuinely believe they have earned the right to lead the world, though not to coerce it.” Yes, perhaps they believe it. But why would the U.S. have the right to lead the world and not the Mongols? And they are not only “leading” but definitely “coercing”, to put it mildly. Webb concludes that if other nations will be in charge, “our children will long to have the Yanks back”. Now that is ... bullshit.

Webb says “the US does not kill civilians as a matter of policy”. Ask in heaven or hell the 650,000 Iraqis killed as a result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, based on lies manufactured by the neocons and only feebly opposed by the Democrats, so that the killings can go on unhindered. Sure, Shia are killing Sunni and Sunni are killing Shia, but under international law, the occupiers, that is the U.S. and its allies, are responsible for security under their occupation and therefore guilty of the killings. If they want to absolve themselves, they should leave Iraq immediately, although they will still be guilty of all the murders since March 2003.

According to Webb, peace campaigners should focus on the WMD held by other nations, not the U.S. This shows he wants to disarm all nations except the U.S., so that the U.S. could rule the world as the ultimate Empire of Evil. Webb missed his calling, or he should have been born a bit earlier. He could have been a great propaganda chief for Herr Adolf Hitler.

Webb on anti-Americanism (I)

BBC Washington correspondent Justin Webb has written a series of articles on anti-Americanism, including attitudes on the U.S. in France, Venezuela and Egypt. Webb wants to challenge “the idea that the U.S. is an international bully, a modern day imperial power”. (BBC: Anti-Americanism)

We can guess he'll have a hard time :-) Let's see what arguments he can come up with.

According to Webb there is “a willingness to condemn America for the tiniest indiscretion [...] while leaving murderers, dictators, and thieves who run other nations oddly untouched”. Sure, there are many murderers and dictators in this world, but usually there are only capable of murdering their own people and perhaps those of a neighboring country. Not only has the U.S. completely wiped out its native inhabitants – the Indians – it has massacred peoples around the world, the list is really too long to mention here... Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, just to name a few. To Webb that's only a tiny indiscretion.

“Anti-Americanism was born in France ... well before the United States existed”. This remark is really to idiotic to even be worth refuting. How can anybody be “anti-American” even before the U.S. existed. This only shows Webb's twisted logic, who claims the French found the New World “ghastly”. Well now, the French also tried to colonize the New World, until they were defeated by English settlers. OK, maybe they are bad losers. But as even Webb has to confess, anti-Americanism also exists in the U.K.! While ranting about French anti-Americanism, Webb descends into the ugly depths of “anti-Frenchism”, too ugly to describe here. According to Webb the French can't stand ordinariness, such as epitomized by the U.S. or ... Belgium. Ahem, what about the aristocratic British with their stiff upper lip?

Latin American countries have only themselves to blame for being poor, judges Webb. In each and every one of them in the past century a dictatorship has been imposed on the people with the all too active support of the U.S. Now that the Latin American countries are liberating themselves from this American yoke, Webb rants about Chavez's “anti-Americanism”. How much did the neocons pay him to write this nonsense, or is Webb really brain-death? What kind of “infrastructure” did the Yankees put in place in South America if not to plunder its riches? “Millions and millions of Latin Americans benefit every day from the powerhouse US economy – from relatives cleaning cars in Los Angeles, making beds in Las Vegas and picking fruit in rural Georgia,” Webb writes. And so they toil as wage slaves earning a pittance to make American capitalists rich. According to Webb, they should be grateful and kiss the Americans' ass.

And Webb wonders if Latin Americans will “reward US support and good behavior” in the future. What a stupid question! The U.S. will never show “good” behavior before its imperialism is destroyed by the rising opposition of the peoples of the world, and ultimately by the American people itself, which is also suffering under the system imposed on it by the robber barons.

It is a disgrace to the BBC that this individual is on its payroll. Webb should send his C.V. to Fox News or the Washington Times, where he belongs.

April fools deadline

The Democrat controlled House voted 218 to 208 to grant Bush another 124 billion dollar to conduct his murderous “surge” against the Iraqi people. When he's finished with it, he should let “our men and women in uniform” come home to the homeland, starting in October and ending on April 1, 2008. That's according to the Democrats.

Why leave the American occupiers another 12 months in Iraq? Why wasting another 124 billion dollars on a lost war? Why send another 1,020 American soldiers to their deaths in the deserts of Iraq – at the current rate of 85 a month, but this could get much worse... And of course another hundred thousand Iraqi deaths, which the Americans don't give a damn shit about.

The Democrats act like stupid fools. By April 1, 2008, the Americans will not retreat from Iraq, they will have been thrown out of the country, like they have been thrown out of Vietnam in April 1975.

Sustaining Bush's bloody war for another year with billions of taxpayers' money. Sending a thousand “fellow Americans” to their deaths. Murdering a hundred thousand Iraqis, and probably many more, in cold blood. That is the course taken by Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama. They don't even dare to talk about impeachment of the war-criminal-in-chief.

Meanwhile, the U.S. strategy is working, General David Petraeus tells members of Congress. It sure is, packing “men and women in uniform” in body bags. (CNN: House passes Iraq withdrawal timetable; Top general says Iraqi sectarian murders are down)

There are no American heroes

One of the most “heroic” American war stories to come out of the Iraq War now turns out to be a bunch of lies manufactured in the basement of the Pentagon. On March 23, 2003, Jessica Lynch didn't fight heroically against her Iraqi attackers. One second after the crash of her military vehicle, she was badly wounded, incapacitated and incapable of firing a shot, even if she would have known how to do it. She was saved by Iraqis sympathetic to the plight of a 19-year old girl. The so-called rescue by American forces was an elaborate fraud. Jessica Lynch didn't even have the courage to say that the Pentagon was lying, until now, more than 4 years after the facts. Some kind of heroism...

Pat Tillman was gunned down in Afghanistan by his own buddies, not while putting up a heroic resistance in a Taliban ambush. Telling the truth would have been “a disaster, a brutal truth that the American public would undoubtedly find unacceptable”, his brother Kevin told the U.S. Congress. And so, the Pentagon manufactured another fake story of heroism. (CNN: Soldier: Army ordered me not to tell truth about Tillman)

Lies, lies, lies. That's the stuff the Pentagon is made of. There can never be heroism in aggression. In the eyes of their comrades, some Nazi soldiers certainly performed heroic deeds. That's besides the point. The death of an aggressor is lighter than a feather, the death of a resistance fighter weighs heavier than Mount Taishan, to borrow Mao's wise words.

In the eyes of the Iraqi people, there can never be any American “hero”.

The gravedigger of the U.S.S.R.

Boris Yeltsin died yesterday and his legacy is controversial. That's about the only thing everybody can agree on. Let's see what CNN has to say: “Former President Boris Yeltsin, who engineered the final collapse of the Soviet Union and pushed Russia to embrace democracy and a market economy,...” (CNN: Former Russian leader Yeltsin dead)

Let's take a moment to rephrase this:

... the final collapse of the Soviet Union ...: He managed to break up the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics into 15 separate states, leaving the world with only one superpower, the U.S.

... pushed Russia to embrace democracy ...: and only the super-rich oligarchs have enough money to get themselves elected.

... and a market economy ...: controlled and exploited by those same oligarchs.

Some also say Yeltsin was the man who beat Communism (The Independent: Yeltsin: The man who beat Communism; He shaped our world, for better or worse) The man who destroyed the socialist character of the Soviet Union was Nikita Krutchev, not Gorbachov or Yeltsin.

The fact that Soviet Social-Imperialism (as Mao characterized the country) disappeared at the end of 1990 is a good thing. It destroyed a superpower, which was – once again according to Mao – worse and more dangerous than the U.S. The Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight, with all the contradictions pushed to the breaking point. Gorbachev had a hand in that. But then what did Yeltsin do? He promoted Russian great-chauvinism to the extent that the Soviet Union broke up in 15 pieces. That is Yeltsin's primary legacy and none of the peoples of the 15 countries, except those of the three Baltic states which joined the E.U., got a good deal. As for democracy, the Western media are saying Putin is already killing it.

One focus of the editorials and comments has been on Yeltsin the drunk. Well, let the guy have his vodka, as long as he doesn't confuse the nuclear button for the cap of the vodka bottle.

Yeltsin also got praise from the Chinese, because indeed, during his term as Russian president, relations with China improved a lot. Nowadays, the Chinese government only evaluates a foreign statesman on one criterion only: did he improve bilateral relations? That is indeed important, but it is not everything.

The West only cares about democracy and free markets, China about bilateral relations. Who gives a damn about the peoples of the former Soviet Union? Ask them if they liked Yeltsin, and they will tell you.

Ségo ou Sarko (I)

Or put another way: madame ou monsieur. Or simply: left or right.

The French voters clearly didn't want a re-run of the second stage in the last presidential election in 2002, where the choice was between Chirac and Le Pen. The whole French left had to hold their noses and vote for Chirac to prevent a victory of the fascist candidate Le Pen. This time, a record 84.5% of eligible voters turned out to vote, to guarantee that their favorite would reach the second round.

In the first stage of this year's presidential election, the small leftist parties suffered badly, because many on the left voted for Ségolène Royal to prevent a second stage run-off between Sarkozy and Bayrou or Sarkozy and Le Pen. The once mighty French Communist Party was nearly obliterated with just 1.93% of the vote. France must surely be the only country in the whole world with three, that is THREE (3) Trotskyist parties contesting the vote. Arlette Laguiller of Lutte Ouvrière made a disgraceful exit. The winner on the far left was Besançenot of the Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire with 4.08% of the vote.

On the far right, the French voters created an even bloodier bloodbath. Le Pen lost no less than one million votes. He failed to come out on top in even one département. Le Front National is history, set back twenty years with only 10% of the vote.

The big question now is what will happen on May 6. Will the winner be Ségo or Sarko? There's only a 5% difference between Sarkozy (31%) and Royal (26%). Ségo will get all the leftist votes and the votes of the migrants and their decedents. No immigrant in his right mind will ever vote for Nicholas Sarkozy, who called them 'scum'. But this guy will of course get most of the votes which went to Le Pen in the first round, although not all, because some disillusioned die-hards will boycott the second round. That leaves both candidates with about an equal number of votes. The outcome will be decided by those who voted for Bayrou. Will the majority tilt to the left or the right?

I believe Ségolène Royal has a good chance of winning, because the French want a change after 12 years of the Chirac presidency. Sarkozy is sometimes describes as an American neocon with a French passport. The French don't want a neocon president. But if Royal wins, it will be a very narrow victory. French society is split in two between left and right, and geographically Sarkoland in the north, east and south and Sègoland in the west and south-west. Even Paris is split. The French better take care to keep out the U.S. Army or it will start building a wall... If Sarkozy wins, the whole of France could erupt in riots. And Ségolène could surf to victory on a campaign of “ tout sauf Sarkozy” (TSS) – anything but Sarkozy. In the end, not the TGV, but the TSS could bring Ségolène Royal to power.

(The Guardian: Forever France; A clear choice) (The Independent: Sarkozy and Royal go through as 84 per cent turnout sets new poll record; Leading article: A result that shows democracy is alive and well)

Comrade Bishop

The head of the Catholic Patriotic Church in China and bishop of the Beijing diocese, Fu Tieshan, died in Beijing on Friday evening, aged 75. He was also a vice chairman of the National People's Congress (NPC) and thereby considered to be a state leader of China. His remains will be cremated next Friday at the Babaoshan Revolutionary Cemetery. Bishop Fu passed away after a long battle with cancer. (Catholic News Service: Beijing Bishop Michael Fu Tieshan, 75, dies)

He made his last public appearance during a preparatory meeting for the annual NPC session on March 4, but did not attend the March 5-16 session itself.

Fu Tieshan became the first “self-elected and self-ordained” bishop in 1979 at the age of 48, following the end of the Cultural Revolution in 1976. He was not recognized by the Pope.

The major questions are: how will the Vatican react? Vatican-appointed Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun of Hong Kong said he would pray for Fu, but will probably not attend his funeral. Who will be Fu's successor, not only at the head of the Beijing diocese and the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association but also as a vice chairman of the NPC. Will his successor be recognized by the Vatican? And if so, will he also become a vice chairman of the NPC? Too many questions waiting for an answer. And the major question of all: when will the Vatican and the People's Republic of China reconcile?

Even non-Catholics are interested to find out the answers...

A day before he died, president and party general secretary Hu Jintao visited Fu at Beijing Hospital. This shows he was not only a bishop, but also an honorary comrade. Even without the blessing of the Vatican, he inaugurated a new spring for Catholicism in Beijing. And the party and the government let it be.

“Give Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God” (Bishop Fu Tieshan, March 2003)

Berlin - Baghdad - Vermont

“I am a Berliner”, John F. Kennedy said. “Tear down that wall,” Ronald Reagan admonished the Soviet leaders. And indeed, in 1990, the Berlin Wall disappeared. Now guess what? The Americans are BUILDING a wall, not in Berlin, but in Baghdad, around the Sunni enclave of Adhamiya. The sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni, promoted, abetted and stoked by the American occupation is so devastating, the U.S. sees no other way but to build a wall, a wall of infamy. (The Guardian: Latest US solution to Iraq's civil war: a three-mile wall) (The New York Times: U.S. Erects Baghdad Wall to Keep Sects Apart)

Everybody, except Bush, Cheney and Blair, now agrees that the Iraq war is 'lost'. Mike Davis writes in The Guardian: “Senate majority leader Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, paid a visit to the lunatic asylum known as the White House to inform its chief inmate that “the war is lost” [...] that US military strategy was now bankrupt.” Davis continues: “... car bombs ... destroyed any idea that Gen Petraus's brigades can secure Baghdad”. (The Guardian: Sinister symmetry) Four years after Bush fantasized he had “accomplished” his mission, the U.S. is thoroughly defeated in Iraq, reduced to a bunch of Wall Builders.

The U.S. military started building the 5 km wall on April 10, of course without asking the locals what they thought about it. Adnan al-Dulaimi, who heads the biggest Sunni bloc in parliament, said it will only breed more strife. Inhabitants of Adhamiya will only be able to return home through checkpoint where they will have to cue, forming an ideal target for car bombers. They don't want to be locked up in open air prisons like the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

Meanwhile in Vermont...

The Senate of the State of Vermont has voted 16 to 9 to call on Congress in Washington to impeachm Bush and Cheney, the friendly local newspaper The Vermont Guardian reports. (The Vermont Guardian: Vermont Senate calls for impeachment of Bush, Cheney) It is the first state legislature to do so, others will no doubt follow. Not that it will matter much. The measure is called “non-binding, mostly symbolic”. The Democrats are too lame to impeach the war criminals.

Was it really Cho who made the world weep? (CNN: Cho's family 'so very sorry' for Tech tragedy)

No, not madman Cho, but madman Bush.

Oh, and George, listen to Uncle Reagan: tear down that wall!