portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

actions & protests | human & civil rights | imperialism & war

Is United For Peace and Justice just another Bush front?

Results of searches on their website.
I was wondering last week when a user dropped a hint that there was no mention of the "downing street memo/minutes" on their website. Wouldn't this be to their advantage in stating their case against war? Have they been silenced, infiltrated, or a front group from the beginning?

In any case, here we are weeks into this oil-for-food fiasco, galloway's testimony, and new information about bombing sorties in 2002 to instigate Saddam to make the case for war. A front page search still yields no results for:

"Galloway", "Downing", "Memo", "Minutes", "Oil for food", "Oil", "Food" (one mention about a "food teach-in"), "Impeach".

 http://unitedforpeace.org/

Is this just another layer of the Bushtrix, one of those rare species of Octopuses with a fourth defense mechanism?

"Three defensive mechanisms are typical of octopuses: ink sacs, camouflage, and autonomising limbs. Most octopuses can eject a thick blackish ink in a large cloud to aid in escaping from predators. They also have specialized skin cells both for color changing (chromatophores) and light reflection and refraction (iridophores and leucophores). They use this ability to blend into the environment to hide, as communication with other octopuses, or as a warning: the very poisonous Blue-ringed Octopus becomes bright yellow with blue rings when it is provoked. When under attack, some octopuses can detach and autonomise their limbs, in a similar manner to skinks and other lizards. The crawling arm serves as a distraction to would-be predators; this ability is also used in mating. A few species have a fourth defense mechanism, in that they can combine their highly flexible bodies with their color changing ability to accurately mimic other, more dangerous animals such as lionfish and eels."

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus

PS. Same search on anti-war.com front page, yields no results.

----

US: civil liberties group charges FBI intimidation of political activists
 http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/may2005/aclu-m20.shtml

FBI Targets Anti-War Activists
 http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ANS311A.html

----

Blowing the whistle on the Iraq War charade

By Greg O'Connor
Posted Tuesday, May 31, 2005

During the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, pro-war urgers throughout the world - not least in Australia - swallowed every line fed to them by the White House, 10 Downing Street and Canberra. Nothing was impossible to believe - the more improbable the assertion, the more vigorously it was defended. With a few honourable exceptions, it seemed that almost all media "commentators" in Australia, like those in many other western countries, lost the ability to think critically.

By mid-2002, many in the West clearly saw the invasion was on, with the justifications massaged to fit logistical requirements. These recalcitrants did not need to read their tealeaves to come to this conclusion. A diligent following of events unfolding in Washington over the previous few years was sufficient. The following are a few of many issues which should have rung alarm bells in the lead up to the war.
The 1998 letter to President Bill Clinton by the far-right think tank, Project for the New American Century

Among a shopping list of demands, the PNAC demanded that:

... Removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power ... now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy ... This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts ... We believe the US has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council ...

No fewer than 11 of the 18 signatories on this letter have held very senior positions in the Bush Administration, including Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Armitage. Of the other seven, most were well-known lobbyists within the maze of extreme-right think tanks in Washington. There were some truly malevolent people within this group, including convicted Iran-Contra scandal identity Elliott Abrams, who was later rehabilitated by George W. Bush and brought inside the administration.
The 2000 'Rebuilding America's Defences' report of the PNAC

Across 90 pages, this document (pdf file 853KB) was a how-to manual for the muscular US foreign policy approach, favoured by the extreme right. Among a litany of allegations, assertions and prescriptions, the paper stated confidently:

? Adversaries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea are rushing to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons as a deterrent to American intervention in regions they seek to dominate ?

It goes on to discuss an "unresolved conflict" with, and "continuing challenges" from, Iraq.
George W Bush?s January 2002 State of the Union address

During this address, Bush dubbed Iran, Iraq and North Korea an "axis of evil". He also laid the groundwork for what would become an unrelenting campaign of disinformation about Iraq?s alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD) capabilities that followed in the months ahead. All of these allegations were thoroughly discredited following exhaustive, but fruitless, post-conflict searches in Iraq which cost billions of dollars.
The September 2002 National Security Strategy of the USA

Many experts had trouble distinguishing policy prescriptions in this document, the official national security policy of the US Government, from the prescriptions set out in the PNAC Rebuilding America's Defences paper. Given the prominence within the administration of former and ongoing PNAC apparatchiks, it is difficult to see this as coincidental.

This is but a small sample of abundant material which should have guided rational thinkers to at least question whether in mid-2002, US sabre-rattling on Iraq owed more to ideology than to actual intelligence. However, the pro-war crowd went berserk at such a suggestion. How dare anyone impugn the integrity of Bush in this way? How dare it be suggested that Tony Blair and John Howard, who were clearly inside the tent by this stage, made decisions to support US action whatever that may be. How dare it be suggested that a decision to invade had already been made. The US Government claimed the decision was in the hands of Saddam Hussein alone.

Well, let?s see if this is now clear enough, even for the gormless and the gullible in the pro-war bandwagon. The Sunday Times in London recently published a secret UK Government memo, confirmed as authentic, which blows the whistle once and for all on this charade. Recording details of a meeting between the UK Prime Minister, Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General and others in July 2002, the memo records information about then-recent inter-government discussions in Washington:

? There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action ? The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January ? It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force. ?

It's called a smoking gun, but the silence now is deafening. Where are the toy soldiers of the pro-war bandwagon now? Indeed, where is the media on this?

Greg O'Connor is a business consultant whose company, Australia Global Ventures, works with a range of clients to test different business models and develop a wide range of financial models to test the likely impact of changes in key variables on business or project financial performance. He also has a long-standing interest in international affairs and has had a range of historical quiz products published internationally.

 http://mparent7777.blog-city.com/read/1316375.htm

-----

OIL-FOR-FOOD FACTS, NOT FANTASY

Five billion dollars could have gone a long way in feeding starving Iraqi kids. Instead, the money went into some rich sheiks? bank accounts. The irony of this is that brothers of youngsters who died because of lack of food or medicine are now resisting the U.S. presence in Iraq and killing U.S. personnel. Neither Clinton nor Bush thought of this while they were starving Iraq. To them, an ass-kissing sheik from Qatar or the U.A.E. was more worthy of receiving Iraqi money than the people of Iraq.

 http://www.malcomlagauche.com/id1.html

-----

After Downing Street

ADS is a coalition of veterans' groups, peace groups, and political activist groups, which launched on May 26, 2005, a campaign to urge the U.S. Congress to begin a formal investigation into whether President Bush has committed impeachable offenses in connection with the Iraq war.

 http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/
UPJ front group 01.Jun.2005 14:13

okey

I agree UPJ has been a very organized "front group" from the beginning. thanks for the post.

I think Portland Indymedia is a Bush Front/Gatekeeper/Right Wing Conspiracy 01.Jun.2005 15:07

DJ Shadow

This is getting old. Just because UFPJ or Democracy Now or KBOO or the Mormons or whatever is not taking up whatever issue folks deem to be the most important of the day is hardly reason to condemn them.

These kind of accusations (UFPJ is not all over the Downing Street memo, therefore they are a front group) sound more like a right-wing conspiracy or Cointelpro-type disinformation than UFPJ's apparent unwillingness to go in whatever direction you want them to. And coming up with this assessment by doing a search on their website? That's weak.

Folks should criticize UFPJ and other big peace groups (I do all the time). But do it for what they are doing, what you think they are doing well, what they are doing wrong, NOT for what key phrases are not turning up in a website search.

Seriously, this wave of conspiracy theory stuff and "Left Gatekeeper" critiques is getting tedious. If people are going to smear these organizations, you need to have something more substantive than who funds them and website searches. In the real world, this would probably be called libel. Around here, it jeopardizes the overall credibility of this site. Just like I worry that people are only getting their news from Fox, I worry that others are only getting their info from this site.

yeah what dj shadow said 01.Jun.2005 16:56

me

I was gonna write sorta the same thing, but you did so more eloquently...thanks!

more yeh dj shadow 01.Jun.2005 18:12

me2

Kinda inrsting about the octopus tho

Yeah, what he said 01.Jun.2005 21:08

say it ain't so joe

This is getting old. Just because UFPJ or Democracy Now or KBOO or the Mormons or whatever is not taking up whatever issue folks deem to be the most important of the day is hardly reason to condemn them.

[Your right, you can't blame people for being scared. We should just let the minutes slide, so he lied and people are dead, the world hates us, we're losing rights fast, and DU is everywhere. Maybe he won't invade Iran if we just keep quiet about the minutes like everyone else, that seems to be working well. I guess justice doesn't count when you have that as your name and a liar as president that starts an illegal war.]

These kind of accusations (UFPJ is not all over the Downing Street memo, therefore they are a front group) sound more like a right-wing conspiracy or Cointelpro-type disinformation than UFPJ's apparent unwillingness to go in whatever direction you want them to. And coming up with this assessment by doing a search on their website? That's weak.

[I ask a question and don't get an answer, just accused of being an accuser. What's weak? Your inability to think objectively or are you scared too? I was just hoping the group I have given money to, marched with, and supported would have a little blurb about it(you know, I'm not asking them to put DJ SHADOW across the top or anything). I apologize to you and them, I'll make sure I just get in line like a good little soldier, c'mon dude, chill.]

Folks should criticize UFPJ and other big peace groups (I do all the time). But do it for what they are doing, what you think they are doing well, what they are doing wrong, NOT for what key phrases are not turning up in a website search.

[No wonder your a DJ, analysis is not your forte. Look at what you just said.

"Folks should criticize...(I do all the time)" and "do it for what they are doing"

Shall I spell it our for you? I am criticizing them for what they are NOT doing, why would I criticize them for marching against war, that's great, in fact, it would be better with a big sign that says, "don't go to our site, go to another site to find out what we don't want to talk about". How do I know this, as you say, "for what key phrases are not turning up in a website". But I digress, I see I struck a nerve with you and instead of offering an answer, you mount an offensive. Wouldn't, "I don't think so, they are just a large group that tries to be mainstream like move on.org", been more constructive? Yes, but that's not why you replied, you replied to accuse and judge my motives. Yet you failed to see I was asking a question and my name should of clued you in to the fact that I am not accusing them, "say it ain't so joe".]

Seriously, this wave of conspiracy theory stuff and "Left Gatekeeper" critiques is getting tedious.

[First of all, I said nothing about left gatekeepers(you did), my theory is differen't on that, but you don't care do you, furthermore, I just asked a question(maybe it was the right one). So why do you read them? with your perception, couldn't you see from the title what it was going to be about? Maybe it makes you angry not tired. Maybe it makes you think stuff you don't like to think about? Maybe I don't know the answer to how your feeling, but I do know you chose to read some of it and reply for a reason. It's because it's tedious huh? It's like a car crash, you have to stop and look.]

If people are going to smear these organizations, you need to have something more substantive than who funds them and website searches.

[Is this the same DJ Shadow that "wrote" this article and made this comment:

Title: Composting Important Corporate News Only Makes Sense When There is an Alternative Source
Author: DJ Shadow
Date: 2004.11.30 01:20
Description: This important story: "Protest suits cost city of Portland $300,000" should be covered on Indymedia.


How about this one:

Title: News That Folks Should Know About, From Corporate Media
Author: DJ Shadow
Date: 2004.12.04 07:44
Description: In case Indymedia is your only news source, here's some stories you should know about.
--

Your quite the little journalist yourself I see. I guess if I dump corp news on here without even writing something "substantive", just smearing Indymedia, I would be accepted better. LMAO.

So here we have "dj shadow" once again telling others to have more substantive(substantial?) information, like dumping corporate articles, because he's too lazy to write a synopsis or analysis of it, thus helping to dumb down the community and not trying to, at the very least, wing it. A question was asked, your undies got in a bunch, and instead of just saying, "hey, I'm going to write them and ask what's up with that", YOU smear, YOU attack, and YOU accuse. I'm not going to call you a "fed", I can tell your not, just a DJ slapping down comments like records. I know allot of dj's like that, they can put a record down on a turntable, but they don't know how to flow because they don't think about the crowd. They're just human jukeboxes that slap corporate news articles down and get mad if you don't like it.]

In the real world, this would probably be called libel.

[Actually, because I like indymedia, it was posed as a question/opinion, based on facts(however small in your eyes), specifically because I don't know, it's a question. "say it ain't so joe"]

Around here, it jeopardizes the overall credibility of this site.

[Yes, we see how credible you are when you accuse indymedia and others of not being as smart as you because they don't read corporate media(which is sooooo hard to find), then cry about it when the article gets dumped in the compost. Get over yourself "dj" shadow.]

Just like I worry that people are only getting their news from Fox, I worry that others are only getting their info from this site.

[Yes, we know all about that, you've mentioned that before, several times, when you tried to categorize everyone that reads this site into a "just in case you don't". Perhaps it's you who should stop reading this site or stop reading conspiracy shit if it makes you mad. Stick to djing, your probably better at it then flaming.

Do you have any positive discourse? I laid out the facts of what I know, I don't have allot of money/resources like the corporate outlets you want to make sure we "know about", "just in case"...so I come to "indy" media, use the form properly(questions), and in comes the mighty dj shadow to lay down the law, again.

I also asked another question wich should of clued you in that I wasn't "accusing", just poking around a bit, that's what they call a theory. People thought thinking the world was flat was tedious too, some got killed for repeating it. Good thing people don't get crucified for thinking anymore, they just get called conspiracy nuts, I can live with that, allot of people do.

"Wouldn't this be to their advantage in stating their case against war?"

Listen, can you hear it, the silence is deafening.

"Have they been silenced, infiltrated, or a front group from the beginning?"

This was meant as an open discussion topic, hoping someone had some more information/analysis/feedback then I could provide. Let me break it down for you though.

The opposite of "peace" is "war" right? Supposedly, we have proof that the intelligence was fixed to meet the policy of war, at the very least, you would think the opposite of war would jump on this(they had about 3-400,000 ppl in new york alone/and probably a mailing list twice as big). In fact, there is a whole website devoted to not only this, but more as well. downingstreetmemo.com & afterdowningstreet.com (I suppose you think voting was all legit too)

The opposite of "justice" would be "injustice", isn't it an injustice that they don't even have a blurb about it? I'd settle for a little link and would not have formed this "opinion". I'm on their mailing list, I didn't see anything, I didn't get a reply from an inquiry, but I didn't present that, because it's not substantial. Maybe they're "too big", but you didn't offer that, you defended them and criticized them in the same shot. C'mon man, come correct or don't come at all.

I actually would be dissapointed to be answered in the affirmative with more substantial facts to back it up. I'm not claiming to be a DJ or a journalist. I'm asking, "say it ain't so joe".

One thing that is certainly not weak, is your ego mr. shadow or should I call you dj? Dude, we're being lied to daily, you know that, I know that, we all know that. Did you ever think this wasn't meant for you, UFPJ, or the mormons. Maybe it was just words on a screen that you chose to read for a reason. I don't know, but I do know that if you throw enough $hit on the wall, some of it will stick. From what I understand, you think this war was started because saddam was coming to get us? If not, I really hope not, then you have two other choices imo, it was an honest blunder(which means we should put the breaks on regardless) or it WAS a conspiracy. That doesn't mean ufpj is a front group, it could mean they have set their limits and that's why guys like rove can run circles around the "left wing".

They are working off of a lie that people have accepted as truth, people have been so gullible, they feel ashamed to speak out. In order to get them on their feet and brush themselves off, you have to shake the cage(non-violently of course). Maybe that's what is being done here, maybe your right, or maybe this is a counter-cointel-disinfo attempt. If it is, I hope it's got you to think a little more then yourself and your dj handle.

If the biggest "peace" group in the US isn't running the story that every COMMERCIAL european media outlet is, as well as independent US outlets(not conspiracy, not peace, just independent news) what's that tell you? Have you bought the corporate conspiracy "theory" line so much your willing to repeat it here over and over? I've told you what it doesn't tell you through simple facts. You can say I don't have anything substantial, but I'm not prosecuting them, I'm just asking a few questions. Don't like it, change the channel, but I'm on your side and I can see that you are willing to fall on a sword because your "tired" of hearing conspiracy talk. So we did invade Iraq to liberate them, so we did invade Iraq because Saddam had "wmds", so we did invade Iraq because he is linked with al-qaeda, there was no conspiracy to fix the intelligence and THAT is why UFPJ doesn't mention it. Rinse, wash, repeat. I hear sticking your fingers in your ears works. Sorry for wasting your time.

I'm glad someone out there appreciated the octopus. ;)
I'm sorry about your kid lady, but dj shadow is tired of iraq conspiracies
I'm sorry about your kid lady, but dj shadow is tired of iraq conspiracies
Don't worry little girl, we'll get those terrorists for you
Don't worry little girl, we'll get those terrorists for you
good thing there was no conspiracy to fix the intelligence
good thing there was no conspiracy to fix the intelligence

DJ Commentalot 02.Jun.2005 09:18

Mssr. P. Elephant

I didn't see any DJ comments here:
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/318379.shtml
Too mature? Not enough "dudes"? Too much solid information?

Also, unless you record with Ninjatunes, DJ Shadow wants his name back.
If that is you, I'm sorry.

Hey Joe... 02.Jun.2005 16:10

DJ Shadow

I was going to try to respond to everything you wrote, but deciphering all the sarcasm was a bit too much for me and frankly, I don't have the time. And yes, that was me questioning Indymedia's decision to ban all corporate media stories. Are you saying it's wrong to question strategy? More on that later...

My basic point was this:
A little while back the FBI used to do stuff like forge letters from Martin Luther King in an attempt to make it look like he was having an affair. They sent an agent into a Central America solidarity committee to seduce one of its leaders--a nun--so that she would look bad. Nowadays (mostly thanks to the anonymous nature of the internet) activists do a pretty good job of making each other look bad without the FBI's help. Instead of questioning strategies and offering suggestions, we accuse each other of being infiltrators.

So before you ask if "they been silenced, infiltrated, or a front group from the beginning?", you should have some REALLY good reasons for asking. You say that you are just asking this question ("I ask a question and don't get an answer, just accused of being an accuser"), but you have to admit that just asking is almost the same as accusing. You are essentially questioning their strategy, right? You think they should be using the Downing Street memo more agressively in their work. I question lots of their strategy, too. And question their strategy is fine, but accusing them of being a front group because you don't like their tactics is a lot like what an infiltrator would do. Should I ask at this point if YOU are an infiltrator? I won't because I think that's dangerous and foolish, and I really don't think you are.

Anyway, I have better things to do with my time than debate these points with you here in this anonymous and unaccountable forum.

This just showed up in my inbox... 02.Jun.2005 16:41

DJ Commentalot

Interesting timing...does these folks sound like a Bush front?

From the Common Dreams website ( http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0531-33.htm), outgoing 50 Years Is Enough Network Director Njoki Njoroge Njehu and United for Peace & Justice National Coordinator Leslie Cagan have their say on Paul Wolfowitz's new job as president of the World Bank

Published on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 by CommonDreams.org

Wolfowitz's Move to the World Bank Presidency and the Sharpening of Economic Policy as a Weapon of Mass Impoverishment
by Njoki Njoroge Njehu & Leslie Cagan

On June 1, Paul Wolfowitz will become the 10th President of the World Bank Group. This news, confirmed in March, took just about everyone by surprise. President Bush had just returned from a tour of Europe which he used for mending relationships frayed by disputes over the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The Wolfowitz nomination to head the World Bank, on the heels of the nomination of John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, was seen as a slap in the face to the U.S.'s European allies.

Not only was Wolfowitz the leading planner and promoter of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, but his outlook, with its certitude about the U.S.'s international role, which could only be described as neo-imperial. His continued presence at the Pentagon, coupled with the trust President Bush invested in him despite his frequent displays of poor understanding and predictive ability about world events, was a continuing concern until his resignation.

But the presidency of the World Bank is no more suitable a position for a man who, like Wolfowitz, has consistently found extremist ideology more persuasive than actual facts. The concern about his leadership at the World Bank came not only from its critics but also from Bank employees. The World Bank's internal pensions and benefits webpage reportedly crashed due to over-use on the day Wolfowitz's nomination was confirmed.

The World Bank is a powerful multilateral institution, lending and investing billions of dollars annually for projects like dams and pipelines as well as for "adjustment" packages for countries with economic problems. Its president, unilaterally appointed by the U.S., is the most prominent figure in the world of international economic development. As World Bank campaigners have been arguing for decades - and especially in the last 10 years, the World Bank is already overstuffed with ideological rigidities that supplant quality analysis, and is unshakably committed to economic policies that benefit large corporations and wealthy countries at the expense of the ostensible beneficiaries -- the impoverished majorities in borrowing countries.

From the legislatures to the streets, citizens in many of the countries that borrow from the World Bank have vigorously opposed the policies it demands --privatization of basic services like water provision, health care, and education; massive public-sector lay-offs; drastic trade and investment deregulation; dismantling established protections for workers. Now a man already notorious around the world for his leading role in the Iraq war has been appointed by President Bush to lead the World Bank. It makes the link between U.S. military and economic policy clear: they are two sides of the same coin.

For the billions of people living in the countries marginalized by contemporary economic and political structures, the actions and motivations of the United States look pretty simple. It will do what is necessary to control whatever resources it considers essential, and it will use the available political, military, and economic tools to ensure that its dominance is never threatened, and in fact extended however possible. People in Africa, Asia, and Latin America have long seen that the culmination of any intervention by the United States and its allies in their countries, whether economic or military, is the re-structuring of their economies to serve foreign and corporate interests. Sometimes that means preserving unsavory regimes; occasionally it means overthrowing them. Most often it requires less violent means -- the enforcement of economic contracts by international institutions like the World Bank.

The World Bank has long been a vital part of building and maintaining a global economy that uses poorly-paid workers and farmers in poor countries to maintain the comfort of consumers in rich ones. The World Bank and its sister institution, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have long exploited poor countries' debt burdens to impose the policies that maintain this system. The most vulnerable people in the world are in essence paying off debts for failed policies and projects and the whims of old dictatorial regimes which they never wanted nor benefited from.

Ironically perhaps, Wolfowitz -- when he was focused solely on Iraq, asserted the doctrine of "odious debt." He argued that Iraq's creditors should cancel the debts owed them by Iraq because they were contracted by a dictator and used against the people's best interests. It is an argument that debt campaigners have made in the case of debts incurred by dictators in Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Nigeria, Indonesia, Haiti, the Philippines, and elsewhere, as well as in the case of apartheid South Africa and regarding the many failed projects and outright "white elephants." He was right in the case of Iraq and for the sake of justice and consistency the logic must be extended to cover other countries in the same situation. If he were to maintain this principle as president of the World Bank Group, he could be part of transforming the global economy in a positive way. Because that transformation would come at the expense of the World Bank's prerogatives, Wolfowitz will have to decide whether to maintain his principles or preserve his power. There is little in his track record to indicate that he might choose justice over power, but we would be glad to be surprised.

An old saying maintains that "diplomacy is war by other means." Paul Wolfowitz has been both diplomat and war-maker. Now at the World Bank, unless he is willing to change its course dramatically, he will vividly demonstrate that today economic development, along with international trade, is war carried out by other means.

Around the world people have expressed great concern about Wolfowitz's new role and the new kinds of war he will be waging. When he takes office, anti-war and global justice activists will have the opportunity, and the challenge, of demonstrating the coherence of a global system where the odds against the poor and marginalized are kept stacked not by nature, or by accident, but by deliberate policy choices. No better illustration than Paul Wolfowitz is likely to come along soon.

The authors are, respectively, Director of 50 Years Is Enough: U.S. Network for Global Economic Justice , a coalition opposing the World Bank and IMF, and National Coordinator of United for Peace & Justice , the U.S.'s largest anti-war coalition

wheww, now I know it's just their strategy 02.Jun.2005 22:05

say it ain't so joe

So I just won't give them money. I'll try to make it short for you this time with less sarcasm. I have read allot of cointel documents as well, so if I was infiltrating, I'd be saying this in their forum, who cares about taking over an anonymous board(unless they're doing something right). I'll be brief.

Cointel also had another op. They would join a group, KKK, Black Panthers, whatever(they also started groups), anyways, once trusted, perhaps with a name that was accountable, they would call out the leader for being soft, misdirected, or even having the wrong strategy. Once that leader was ousted, they used the group to filter the most outspoken ones and then silenced them, either by intimidation, arrest, IRS, many ways.

Still with me? My point is, during these decades, you mentioned MLK, these tactics were not known, nor the program itself. Some tactics included political assassinations(supposedly foreign), yet they were doing domestic intelligence gathering. You can imagine, just like now, people had every right to be wary of a government that spies on it's own citizens.

Many people were killed under suspicious circumstances during these years, imo, these people shared a common thread in that they all were exposing corruption. Eventually, we had the church committee. During this we discovered how deep this crap really was. In a majority of instances, activists, political groups, etc, were not doing anything wrong. When the white house didn't get anything to quell their paranoia(or some dirt on a political opponent, job harrassment, etc), they told them to keep looking untill they did find something. Sounds like the "slam dunk" we heard from Tenet on Iraq huh?

This is why I'm skeptical of anyone who knows the facts but doesn't want to talk about it or labels people with tripe. I'm not selling global catastrophe, UFOs, revolution, or alternative lifestyles here. We're talking about an illegal war and lying to congress, Nixon resigned for less.

I hope dj commentalot is reading too. If they want to petition wolfowitz, great, I don't like wolfowitz either, does anybody? The speech is dead on, maybe ufpj is just funded by democrats.

If your going to go after the money, go after the real money, mount a campaign against the lobbyists, shady pr firms, sneaky insiders. Griping after his appointment serves as a nice distraction, even common dream's front page yields results for the keywords.

So again, here are two instances now. Why go after wolfowitz when you have a constitutional lawyer saying this:

"The recent release of the Downing Street Memo provides new and compelling evidence that the President of the United States has been actively engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for going to war against Iraq. If true, such conduct constitutes a High Crime under Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution."

I bet he doesn't mind if you call him a conspiracy "theorist". You would know this if you bothered to read this:  http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=4

This doesn't prove jack about UFPJ and I don't care about them really, because he's actually challening the feds. He's just asking for support. Too bad UFPJ can't, won't, or has decided not to pitch them a link. That's all, don't get so upset when conspiracies are talked about. I'm poking around a group that you just criticized yourself, so why get angry, negativity hurts the soul.

Call me crazy, wacko, nutjob, that's fine, but be careful when you do accuse, and be careful when you use a name because you don't want to be anonymous and accountable. Read about chaos and cointel:  http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/contents.htm (more on that later)

I don't care if you trust me or not. I don't care if you know me or not, that's not why I'm here. The music is in the message and that music is getting louder, with or without ufpj. It's a shame though, the more the merrier.

I would like to see an inquiry strictly to feel comfortable in my own country that 'some' law still exists. If I have to rattle your cage or their cage, it's my right to do so.

"Congress shall make no law - abridging - the right of the people - to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."? from the First Amendment

The right to petition allows citizens to focus government attention on unresolved ills; provide information to elected leaders about unpopular policies; EXPOSE MISCONDUCT, waste, CORRUPTION, and incompetence; and vent popular frustrations WITHOUT endangering the public order.

On July 4, 1776, the country's founders adopted a famous statement of principles and list of grievances, declaring that:

"In every state of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

Main Entry: ty·rant
1 a : an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution b : a usurper of sovereignty
2 a : a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally b : one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power

The differences between Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush using this definition, only vary in detail. Don't believe the hype.
Peace
Peace
&
&
Justice
Justice

Troll Alert 03.Jun.2005 09:49

Lookout

Please don't feed the trolls!

Hey Joe--you have gone too far 03.Jun.2005 14:34

DJ Shadow

Wait, I forgot one thing: Fuck You!
You put this caption under that horrible photo of the Iraqi child:
"I'm sorry about your kid lady, but dj shadow is tired of iraq conspiracies"

I have done a bunch, and will continue to do my part to end the US invasion/occupation of Iraq. Your snide and sarcastic bullshit is pretty low. Maybe you don't like how I work against this war (something you don't know) or how UFPJ works, but I know one thing: making accusations like this is definitely NOT a good way to stop it. I don't know who you are, but I know I don't want to work with you because of what you have said, and what you are now accusing me of, and because of your fundamentalist strategic thinking (this particular strategy is not only the best way, but the ONLY way to work).

I have a suggestion. Instead of condemning everyone who is not adopting your strategy to stop this war, why don't you organize some shit along your own lines. Hold a rally at the Oregonian condemning them for not running the story about the memo on the front page. I would even go. But just because I don't totally agree with you about strategy, don't you fucking dare accuse me of not caring about Iraqi casualties.

there you go again, shooting from the hip 03.Jun.2005 18:33

say it ain't so joe

Wait, I forgot one thing: Fuck You!

(then they angrily oppose you)

You put this caption under that horrible photo of the Iraqi child:
"I'm sorry about your kid lady, but dj shadow is tired of iraq conspiracies"

(Well, you would have seen that two days ago, but like you said...more on that later, so I don't get the courtesy of your rebuttal, but I get a snide two-bit played out line...like I said, stick to djing. Oh, and btw, you were "tired of conspiracies", so those are just your words, I just added, sorry lady)

I have done a bunch, and will continue to do my part to end the US invasion/occupation of Iraq.

(I never accused of you not doing a "bunch", your nobody to me so why is that my concern, there goes your ego again, ME, ME, ME, calm down dude)

Your snide and sarcastic bullshit is pretty low.

(so is responding originally by calling my observations and questions, "conspiracy theory stuff", "tedious", and "tired") touche. ;)

Maybe you don't like how I work against this war (something you don't know) or how UFPJ works, but I know one thing: making accusations like this is definitely NOT a good way to stop it.

(There you go AGAIN. GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD, I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOU, YOU AREN'T KILLING PEOPLE. But, I see, accusing people on indymedia of being beneath you because they may or may not have read something from corp. media that you can't work a synopsis on...is? So now it's my fault they don't mention the downing minutes, it's my fault for making very simple observations, it's my fault that YOU responded, it's my fault...anything else?)

I don't know who you are, but I know I don't want to work with you because of what you have said, and what you are now accusing me of, and because of your fundamentalist strategic thinking (this particular strategy is not only the best way, but the ONLY way to work).

(You call me out to say that your tired of "conspiracy stuff"(on an open forum), which I believe Iraq is, I float a pic to remind you that if you don't think about "conspiracy stuff", ummm, well, I don't know about you, but when people are backing up the downing minutes with inquiries, you know, members of the house and stuff, I feel that's quite reasonable to mention on your "largest anti-war group" in the us site, if not, I understand that too, I guess.)

I have a suggestion. Instead of condemning everyone who is not adopting your strategy to stop this war, why don't you organize some shit along your own lines.

(Is this your strategy, or mine? I thought ufpj was doing a great job, if you read, I've gone to their marches, have you? Or is your strategy shoot first ask questions later? Who did I condemn? You? Who are you, someone who is "tired" of all this conspiracy stuff. DUDE, IRAQ WAS A CONSPIRACY, imho. Do we have to go through this again? Please read it and check your ego at the door.)

Hold a rally at the Oregonian condemning them for not running the story about the memo on the front page.

(Well, actually, I just wrote about them too. I hope I get the same kind of response from them as I did you. See if you can spot it on here today, that is, if your not busy looking for corporate articles. Look man, I'm not here to fight you. I'm here to create awareness of certain causes I believe in, my name is NOT important, the people being killed are. I'm not looking to sell books, my dj skills, or find friends. If you would take one second to come down off the horse, you would see that.)

I would even go. But just because I don't totally agree with you about strategy, don't you fucking dare accuse me of not caring about Iraqi casualties.

(Wow, you really know how to dig a hole. What strategy? I only implied I had one. NEVER, did I say you don't care.(and never have I had to resort to profanity-not that I care, I just have differen't words). I figured something out awhile back that has been working, FOR ME. Marching wasn't cutting it, attacking the "right wing" wasn't cutting it, LTE's wasn't cutting it.

Well, then I discovered, the corp. media is self-censoring itself or complicit. Wow. Then I said, who can I write to? What's this, indymedia? Sweet, I can freely write what I think without being shunned for it, finally.

So here I am, wondering why an anti-war group is not seizing on what I would call(and many others if you haven't noticed), a pretty good opportunity to make some headway, especially with some compelling evidence.

What's at stake here is your ego,(not ufpj, not iraq, not that picture), and I bruised it. Geesh, sorry, but your going to have to let this one go, unless you want to talk about conspiracies. Then I'm all ears. If you want to talk about you, I'm getting bored with that.

I gave them the benefit of the doubt. I included a few scenarios, that's it. Then I get some crap about wolfie, great. I have no problem either way. It's just that with my short funds, I'd like to know they're being used for something I support. I don't support wolfowitz, but I'm not going to pay someone for writing articles about him. That's what indymedia is for...

If your dj shadow from ninja, then your my kind of asshole, bad attitude and good taste.