Monthly Archives: August 2011

Leading from Behind a Curtain

There is cautious jubilation in the streets of Tripoli and Washington DC. The Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is no more.

Boots on the Ground

Although Muammar Gaddafi has yet to be apprehended, the end of his 40-year reign in Libya is over. We have no idea what kind of governance the rebel coalition will cobble together in the coming weeks and months and possibly years, but Liberal Hawks and the mainstream press are already having their own Mission Accomplished moment by declaring that the joint US-NATO operation, initially sold as a humanitarian mission but eventually obvious as nothing more than a regime change effort, was a resounding success. Although Elliott Abrams slammed the strategy of “leading from behind,” as an Obama staffer termed it, other neoconservatives, for example, Paul Bremer, applauded the President’s approach in Libya. Commentators argued that Obama’s strategy was finally a departure from the “Weinberger Doctrine” and that the “strategy represents a step away from […] the notion that the United States must dominate any operation where its military is involved.” Furthermore, said the President, we did it all without a single boot on the ground.

Well, not exactly. Neither the claims of a “bootless” war or the “success” of a some new strategy are true. It’s just been one more American war.

Early on it was well-known there were mercenaries on the ground in Libya. Conservatives took the president to task for lying about units on the ground “Except for Those Guys,” referring to the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit and their MV-22 Ospreys. It was also known that American special forces were sent to train rebels on the use of arms dropped into Libya, that the CIA and other forces were dropped in, and the US and other NATO nations all ran these operations while lying to their own citizens. The Cato Institute mocked the president’s use of “Sneakers on the Ground.”

plugin:youtube

Now after this hearty meal of lies we are being treated to dessert.

The United States and NATO now state they have no plans to stay in Libya. But even (maybe especially!) the servicemen who read “Stars and Stripes” are skeptical that the United States will stay out of Libya. After all, old habits die hard.

Richard Haass, president of the Council of Foreign Relations, wants to set the matter straight right away and argues that “Libya Now Needs Boots on the Ground.” And given the fact that we already have lots of footprints all over Libya, this is and indeed will be the reality. Libyans will soon discover that the US will be paying a lot of attention to their new coalition government, especially if Islamists are included. Already the American right wing is wetting their pants about the prospect, fearing that Obama has climbed into bed with al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, but Islamism is also a preoccupation of the Foreign Policy establishment.

So, rather than leading from behind, Obama’s Libyan adventure has been a case of leading from behind a curtain. If skeptics are right, the formation of a Libyan government and the adoption of a constitution will be every bit as slow as in Iraq. And why? Not just because of tribal tensions or rusty experience with democracy, but because the US will be there with its boots on the ground, meddling in the selection of legislators and ministers, pressuring the nascent government on oil and assets, trade agreements, military alliances, and serving as the salesman for American military hardware.

Now that’s leading from behind!

In Iran’s own words

This morning’s editorial section contained a piece by Lawrence J. Haas advocating war on Iran. It was typical of ramped-up calls from neoconservatives inside and outside the Obama administration, many of whom have a misplaced preoccupation with Israel and who claim Iran has promised to incinerate half of the world’s Jews in a second nuclear holocaust. No matter that it is Israel which possesses the nukes and that no proof of Iranian nuclear weapons actually exists.

While this war-mongering is really all about who shall maintain a nuclear monopoly in the Middle East and Central Asia — and in so doing preserve oil-dependent colonialism for a few more decades — the war mongers and their friends in the defense industry and pro-Israel lobby have stepped up the calls for U.S. military action, and they’ve added a few new justifications for it. Now in addition to threatening to nuke Israel with (non-existent) nuclear weapons, Iran is being blamed for attacks on Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan and allying itself with Al Qaeda. And now that the U.S. has successfully assassinated bin Laden, we really need another bogeyman.

But since our country seems bound and determined to get into — frankly, I’ve lost count of the number of wars we’ve got going on now — let’s just call it another war, it might be good to understand precisely what the Iranians think of us. Simplistic formulations like “clash of civilizations” and “they hate us for what we have” don’t provide any insight. Apparently nobody wants to re-hash or even look at history: the U.S. coup which removed a secular, democratic Iranian government in the Fifties, American support for the Shah and his brutal secret police, or recent American and Israeli assassinations and sabotage. But in fact, the U.S. has been meddling in Iran since the beginning of the 20th century and the Iranians have a long list of gripes. Iran also has legitimate concerns for its security, as Ron Paul pointed out yesterday in a GOP candidate debate. It is virtually surrounded by the United States:

new.base.map.6.10

Given all this, it is unlikely Iran presents much of a military threat to anyone, including Israel. And even Ehud Barak agrees.

So, if the real issue is not the bogus existential threat to Israel, and the real issue actually is the preservation of Israel’s nuclear monopoly, how do the Iranians feel about it?

One of the best documents to gauge Iran’s views is the transcript of a speech given in 2001 by Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. Iranian presidents come and go, but the mullahocracy remains to guide not only domestic life in Iran but also foreign policy.

In this 2001 speech, Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani discussed colonialism, capitalism, the world since 1948, and Israel’s nuclear advantage, which he sees as a colonial effort and not a Jewish conspiracy. A passage below on “US-British support for Israel” is often cited as a veiled threat to destroy Israel. But the speech discusses neutralizing Israel’s monopoly on nuclear weapons, not destroying the nation. Read it yourself and draw your own conclusions.

The Speech

In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate… In response to your demands I will dedicate the first sermon to the Palestinian issue and the events in the world of Islam. I will use the second sermon to deal with other matters.

First, I have to thank all the good people who have made an effort to participate in the Quds rallies. In many streets I saw their ranks moving towards the university. This reflects the vigilance, the awareness, the faith and the dependable character of our good people. I hope similar support for the Palestinians is being expressed throughout the world.

Palestinian issue

The Palestinian issue, and the formation of the state of Israel, is among the worst periods of our contemporary history. I don’t know of any similar tragedy. In the fifty years that this pseudo state has been formed, and in the several decades before it, when fighting was going on, hundreds of thousands of holy people shed their blood, millions of people lost their homes, millions of people were injured, tragedies resulting from these events constitute the greatest encyclopedia of crime committed by the World Arrogance. History will not forget these things. In my sermon I would like to discuss some 30 points about the history of these events. I think it may be possible to speak about them in a single discourse and I would like to refer to the important points of this history.

First, this is the most misfortunate, tragic and bitter colonial event. Secondly colonialism, lead by Britain and then America, and supported by the United Nations and other sections of the World Arrogance are responsible for these crimes. If in the future an international court is formed – and this is my third point: a court will be formed sooner or later – and if those responsible for these crimes are put on trial many bitter truths will become known in the court. We should follow up this idea and we should ask just and knowledgeable judges to look into these crimes.

The fourth point is that the engine for this disaster is international Zionism. Zionism is a political party which was created some 100 years ago. It is named after the devotees of Zion, a hilltop in Bayt al-Maqdis. This party is not purely Jewish and not all Jews are Zionist. There are many Jews who don’t believe in Zionism. There are many Jewish scholars in America who have been active against the these events. They are also present in other parts of the world. Not all the members of the party are Jewish. There are distinguished Western politicians who were Zionist, such as Churchill, Eisenhower, Kennedy, etc. Of course, I am not an expert in this field and I don’t want to put any names in this list but those who are interested can find out the names of the well known Zionists. This party is still very active around the world and it is the engine for important events connected to Israel, and the Arab and Islamic world. This was my fourth point.

The fifth point is that the loss suffered by the formation of the pseudo state of Israel went beyond Palestine. The Jewish people themselves suffered. This is so because the Jewish people were settled in many countries. In our country, Iran, they were getting on with their life. They were engaged in business. They were rich. They enjoyed influence and a good life. This Zionist movement provoked many Jews, on the basis of their devotion to a religious state of their own, to take a wrong posture. They were put under pressure. There was an exodus and many of them became homeless. Now they have to live in those territories. I will discuss the living conditions in this country if I have the time. But they now have to wait for a possible reverse exodus because finally one day, this tumour in the body of the Islamic world will be removed and then millions of Jews who have moved there will be homeless again. When will this happen? We have to discuss this point on another occasion.

Formation of Israel

This formation of Israel was also to the loss of the region. The region suffered a great loss. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on armament and war. This is beside the acts of injustice committed against the people of Palestine. So who has benefited from the situation? This is my sixth point: The root of the problem is colonial. As traditional form of colonialism came to an end the colonialists sought new instruments of influence. One of these was to impose lackey governments in the previous colonies. The other was to create many military bases across the world, in the Pacific Ocean, the Indian Ocean, the Atlantic Ocean, and other sensitive regions of the world. Costly military colonial posts on land and sea. But the most important objective was to create governments which were totally dependent on colonialism and the best case was that of the Jews – the Zionist government in the Palestinian land. This base was to serve several objectives.

Firstly, it was aimed at getting rid of Zionism in the West, which had become a real nuisance to governments and great powers. It was causing trouble. They threw them out and brought them to Palestine. Secondly, they made Zionism and the Israeli government dependent on themselves to make sure that they would be a tool in their hands. However, the opposite is true as well. They have lobbies which take advantage of colonialism to ensure their own survival. However, colonialism is the main factor. Later on, it was transformed into imperialism because colonialism did not officially exist any more. That was how it manifested itself.

Thirdly, they did that to cause insecurity and threaten other governments and force them to become dependent on imperialism. Then they could sell them arms and do other military things as well. This deeply affected the lives of the people and government of the region and Muslims because they needed particular Western and imperialist products.

There was constant warfare and regional countries became insecure and there was an attempt to prevent their economic and technological growth. We can see this happening and one does not need to explain it in detail. You can see all these things. Therefore, that is the important point. Please do not forget that point until the end of our discussion. Then we can see how much we can count on that when we are analysing the situation or when we are making predictions about the future. The Israeli government was established to act as a guardian, protector and gendarme that defends the interests of imperialism. I have already mentioned several points with regard to that issue.

The Israeli government itself, be it when it was in its embryonic stage or in its present shape, has been hanging from the umbilical cord of colonialism. It has been feeding off it. If the imperialists stop supporting it, it will be in trouble. Thus there is no independent government in Israel in the true sense of the word. It is totally dependent. Now, the Americans are officially contributing 4bn dollars a year to it. There is also the unofficial contributions made by Jewish communities and others. It is a lot.

US-British support for Israel

It is also supported politically in the United Nations and many other places. They also contain Islamic and Arab governments. Israel needs all of those things and the Americans and Britain are meeting its needs. Therefore, we should consider it to be an outgrowth of colonialism and a multi-purpose colonial base. That is where we should start discussing the next point. So the survival of Israel depends on the interests of imperialists and colonialists. So they go together.

The colonialists will keep this base as long as they need it. Now, whether they can do so or not is a separate issue and this is my next point. Any time they find a replacement for that particular instrument, they will take it up and this will come to an end. This will open a new chapter. Because colonialism and imperialism will not easily leave the people of the world alone. Therefore, you can see that they have arranged it in a way that the balance of power favours Israel. Well, from a numerical point of view, it cannot have as many troops as Muslims and Arabs do. So they have improved the quality of what they have. Classical weaponry has its own limitations. They have limited use. They have a limited range as well. They have supplied vast quantities of weapons of mass destruction and unconventional weapons to Israel. They have permitted it to have them and they have shut their eyes to what is going on. They have nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and long-range missiles and suchlike.

If one day … Of course, that is very important. If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists’ strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality. Of course, you can see that the Americans have kept their eyes peeled and they are carefully looking for even the slightest hint that technological advances are being made by an independent Islamic country. If an independent Islamic country is thinking about acquiring other kinds of weaponry, then they will do their utmost to prevent it from acquiring them. Well, that is something that almost the entire world is discussing right now.

Now, even if that does not happen, they can still inflict greater costs on the imperialists. That is possible as well. Developments over the last few months really frightened the Americans. That is a cost in itself. Under special circumstances, such costs may be inflicted on the imperialists by people who are fighting for their rights or by Muslims. Then they will compare them to see how they could advance their interests better or what they can do. However, we cannot engage in such debates for too long. We cannot encourage that sort of thing either. I am only talking about the natural course of developments. The natural course of developments is such that such things may happen.

Those who are desperate, but who are also faithful and idealistic, see that this is in their best interests. Then no-one will be able to control them. That is when they become disappointed with such ordinary deceptive methods. Therefore, in the future, the interests of colonialism and imperialism dictate whether Israel will survive or not. Moreover, it is the resistance put up by Muslims and Iraq and the Palestinians themselves that matters. They should besiege imperialists and make them think about whether it serves their interests or not. They should also think about whether maintaining the current balance of power, which favours Israel, is affordable or not. Both of those things may change in the future.

Iran’s policy

Well, what kind of policy should the Islamic Republic pursue? That is a different issue, which is our eighth or ninth point. As I said, the supreme leader of the revolution Ayatollah Ali Khamene’i has repeatedly said what our policy is. He explicitly said that during the Friday-prayer sermons which he delivered recently. He has enunciated our policy. Whatever we say is an analysis of those policies. The government, the Majlis and all the Iranian institutions and our friends abroad all pursue the same policy.

Well, during all those stages, the Palestinian jihad was proceeding as well. To be honest, the Palestinians never remained completely silent. They had their ups and downs. However, they never became silent. For a while, armed struggle intensified. However, they had to intervene. Their intervention took place through the pressure that was exerted on those who were involved in the armed struggle. It raised the issue of Camp David through puppet governments. It took up 20 years of the Palestinians’ time.

It is not the case that the jihad has completely subsided. However, there have also created false hopes along with the people’s rather quiet jihad. In the end, it resulted in the formation of the so-called national authority. They made false promises which included only 6,000 km of the 28,000 km of the Palestinian territory. In this way, they could form a small and insignificant government here. However, it seems that that era is coming to an end.

At this stage the Palestinians waited. They fell silent and waited. They formed political parties. Some of them took up arms but they were not strong. The final stage of compromise was held at Camp David II, in New York or Washington in America. At that stage Arafat who had been optimistic about the efforts of the American brokers lost hope. When he came to Iran he said President Clinton’s comments at the meeting was a bomb which destroyed the negotiations, the statements of the American president – expressed after several days of intense negotiations – was merely a different version of the Israeli demands, and the meeting broke up. Arafat had written it all down. He read them for me from his notebook.

In the meantime the intifadah began and found a new climax. The Palestinians came to the conclusion that negotiations, be they in Madrid, Camp David, Oslo or any other place, will succeed, only if it is accompanied by their own efforts, selflessness and revolutionary actions. This was the background to the second Intifadah. It began when the Lebanese, with their spirited actions, forced the Israelis, for the first time, to flee in disgrace. This was a good and inspiring lesson. The Palestinian struggle lives on and the Intifadah, the current climax of the Palestinian struggle, is the result of the misleading and dishonest actions of the Western powers. We are witnessing this in the world today. The situation has deep roots. This is the tenth point that I wanted to make.

Now is the Palestinian revolution, the current Intifadah, going to weaken in the future? Some people may think that the Palestinians are going to get tired, that a small community is not going to be able to stand against all this power, that the feebleness and incapability of the Islamic world and its governments will undermine their resolve. But this judgement is wrong.

Palestinian intifadah

For one thing the Palestinian jihad has been the source of inspiration to many other Islamic movements throughout the world. It was a source of inspiration to us in Iran. It has been a source of inspiration to Lebanon, Syria, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Central Asia, Chechnya, African countries, Sudan. They feel obliged to support this jihad. Furthermore, their own advancement has similar positive effects on the Palestinian movement. These countries are not going to forget their source of inspiration. They will keeping an eye on the situation. The Palestinian movement will survive. There may be ups and downs. There many be small ups and downs in view of the global situation. But this is not going to die because it is rooted in the homelessness of five million people, in the innocence of eight million people, in the innocent blood of hundreds of thousands of martyrs whose call is still being heard, in the fallen weapons that call to be taken up, in the feelings of innocence and justice, and more than anything, in the path of martyrdom and happiness and the path of the Almighty. Therefore, you cannot say that the Palestinian movement will die. There may be ups or downs but it will survive. And it will undoubtedly end with the liberation of Palestine.

The huge wave of Islamic jihad of Palestine subsided with the start of the compromise negotiations. Then, when the talks reached a deadlock, the Palestinian intifadah intensified once again, and today, we face a new situation. The important issue today is very important and deserves a mention.

This is my 11th point. It seems that global arrogance has planned four different moves to stop and quell the present intifadah, or at least rid itself of its grave consequences. The first one concerns propaganda. You can see the great propaganda campaign which is in progress in the world today with the aim of introducing them the Palestinians as terrorists, and Israel as the side that is defending itself. You need someone as foolhardy as Molla Nasreddin legendary witty folk figure to believe this. Otherwise, who can believe that Israel, with all its helicopters, F-16 aircraft, tanks and rockets – which it uses to assassinate people – is the side that it is engaged in self-defence, but a selfless and devoted human being, who sees no other option but to attach a bomb to himself and blow himself to pieces in some place, is the terrorist element? If one day, the world reaches such a conclusion and offers such a judgment, then we must consider humanity as dead and buried, and we must start to believe that humans are the same as, or even worse than, animals. Of course, already there are people who act in such a way, but at the same time, claim to champion the cause of human rights.

In my opinion, such a belief is not going to find any place among the righteous-seeking and struggling people. Yet, this kind of propaganda exists in the world today.

The second method they have chosen is violence. You can see how it Israel is perpetrating violence. When one person is killed inside the Israeli territory, a squadron of helicopters begin to fire indiscriminately at the people. You can see for yourselves how far violence has gone. Is this kind of violence a proportionate and appropriate response? Of course, it must be acknowledged that both these methods – that is to say propaganda and violence – have had some effect, but in general, they just aggravate an already bad situation. The people who have no choice but to resort to martyrdom-seeking operations are not going to frightened of this violence. After all, they have nothing to lose. How is a person going to lose anything when he believes that by blowing himself up, one minute he is on this material world and the next moment he is going to be transferred to the divine paradise on the wings of divine angels, and once there, he will sit next to the Prophet and the disciples of God, in a reception given in the honour of divine martyrs?

This is really like a duck trying to threaten the river, or the sea. There is no way that a fish can live without the water of the sea.

As I said earlier, the conditions in Palestine are creating this type of people. These acts of violence by Israel may silence some uncertain or opportunist elements, but as a rule, they will strengthen the resolve of others. It is because of this that I want to tell global arrogance to be on guard. It is here that the cost of exerting pressure on the people of Palestine and lending support to Israel can be very high for global arrogance. If one day, these tired, faithful and martyrdom-loving people decide to deliver blows to the vital interests of arrogance no matter where they are, then they can do this. They the Americans may be able to stop half of these operations, or even two-thirds of them, but some will still be carried out, and when they do, the costs will be huge. The events in New York can be a lesson for the Americans, particularly today, when, due to their aggressive moves and their mistakes, they have paved the way and made it possible for some groups to be armed with non-conventional weapons.

Therefore, as a person who has good knowledge of history, particularly the history of popular movements, I would like to admonish the Westerners not allow to matters to go this far. They should not feel happy about events such as attacks by helicopters, or other acts of violence by Israel. This is very dangerous, and we really do not want to see the world security to be disrupted, and we do not want to see the present insecurity – which has cos

t the world more than 1,000bn dollars and has paralysed the world in many areas, including in Israel itself. The West should not allow the world to suffer from such conditions. They should not allow a situation of confrontation and antagonism between the devoted, martyrdom-seeking forces, and the centres of arrogant power, in the form of the Third World War. This is the worst possible scenario, if arrogance continues with its present ways.

The other path that they have chosen is the path of deceit and false promises. America announces that it supports an independent Palestinian state, with Bayt al-Maqdis as its capital. However, we see that things are different in practice. Europe says the same thing, and Mitchell puts forward a plan. Naturally, such plans have short-term effects for a month or two. Nonetheless, after a while, it seems the people who made these promises start to regret their statements, while, at the same time, those who had believed these promises also start to regret their decision. These plans are not going to produce much. Their last plan involves the use of the so-called Palestinian self-rule authority. This is very bitter indeed. They provide the self-rule authority with a list of names, and ask them to arrest and hand over to Israel for example 200 people on the list. God forbid if the leaders of the self-rule authority fall for this, although they already have done to some extent. They the Israelis are not going to be happy with just an arrest. They are after more.

The worst things that can happen is division and fighting among themselves. All those who have been engaged in jihad for the past 50 years will destroy all their background with one wrong action. We do not want this bitter incident to occur in the history of the Palestinian struggle. However, it is possible for such a thing to happen. I think a few days ago, the Israelis announced that they had complete confidence in Arafat and his intention to establish security. You have witnessed that Israel and America emphasize that there should be complete calm for one week before serious negotiations can begin. They think that this one week is enough and after that it will be difficult to revitalize it the intifadah. During this week other decisions will be made. The self-rule government should not give in to this and think that it will achieve its objectives in this way. In America, he Arafat saw and heard the final words of Mr. Clinton and he noted them in his old note book. He knows what can happen. As a result, God willing, the leaders of the self-rule government will not be deceived by this big trickery.

Another solution that they are hopeful about, is to tire the mojahedin and to propagate, what they used to always say to us in Iran, that there is no use in these actions, and they are like trying to achieve the impossible; they said why should these valuable human beings be destroyed like this. These are not in line with Islamic and Koranic logic. These who are in the arena are Muslims.

The Koran says that it is not such that your enemy should not be harmed… In a serious and true jihad, if you suffer, your enemy will also suffer. It addition, it says: you have some hopes that are far beyond their reach. With this suffering, you will reach absolute prosperity and with their suffering, they will plunge into hell; these are not equal. You rely on justice and God, and they are on the edge of an abyss of fire preceding sentence in Arabic and these two are not the same.

You, who believe yourselves to be intelligent people and diplomats, shouldn’t say that why are these Palestinian children are being lost like this. These blows are very fatal. You are destroying the enemy from within. A nation which does not have atomic and chemical weapons and F-16s, has discovered something stronger than F-16s which it has pursued. You have left them no option. You have shut off everywhere to them. You have placed them there through your extermination methods. As a result, it seems that these methods which the imperialists are using, will lead to no where. These were some eight or nine points which I have made and not kept count of. You yourself should count them.

Self defence or terrorism

See what arrogance Israel is demonstrating in this regard. The conference of the Islamic countries’ foreign ministers in Qatar was on the basis of an invitation by Arafat and everyone was Arafat’s guest. Israel arrogantly said that Arafat has no right to leave Palestine and even went further and said he shouldn’t leave Ramallah. Today, they are saying he has no right to leave his home. Well, this is a self-rule government. He is a weak designated against elected mayor without any authority. What government and establishment is this? What have you pinned your hopes on? Why have you wasted the Palestinian nations’ time for 20 years. Today some advise the youth and the women who have recently joined the masses of martyrdom-seeking individuals, to protect and preserve themselves for some other time. I want to mention two other important issues in another part of my speech.

Now that the situation has become a bit desperate, the Europeans, who during the past few months pursued a different approach to that of America and Israel and had made the Islamic world a little hopeful, have changed their stance.

They are openly saying that Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine are terrorist organizations. They are so shameless that they ask Islamic countries to treat these groups as if they were terrorists, to close down their accounts, to close their offices, to put their members on trial. To be so obedient is a source of shame for European governments which see themselves as being equal to America. How can they explain this injustice to their own nations and freedom-loving people? Is this fair judgment? There are five million Palestinian refugees, their families live on UN handouts in camps and shanty towns. Their groves, homes, farms and workshops inside Palestinian territories are being taken over by rich Zionists. They are only defending themselves and you call them terrorists. It is shameful. You have to be truly shameless. What sort of people pronounce these things and vote for these things in their countries? Let the world see the truth. Let the freedom-loving people of the world see the truth. Let them see that those who call themselves the leaders of the free world and who claim to be defending human rights are, in fact, opposed to human rights. They are weak and inferior. There is no rationale for their actions. Their helicopters openly terrorize people on the streets. They, and not the Palestinian Authority, control the airspace. The helicopters come down and target taxi passengers after identifying them. This is what terrorists do. Are they defending helpless people? If this is their rationale then the actions of ordinary terrorists are truly more honourable than this form of freedom seeking encouraged by the West ? One day the world will judge.

Warns USA

The second issue concerns America itself. In Afghanistan, the Americans – according to their own thinking, according to their own analysis – achieved a swift victory through the power of bombardment. Of course, it seems to be the case, but they attach very little value to the main principle and they think that the role played by the Afghan nation, the United Front and the mojahed forces. That is at least what they pretend. That is what they are displaying to the world, even if they do not truly think so. They are trying to exhibit to the world that America has found a way for fighting its opponents. The bombings, on the one hand, and the use of domestic Afghan forces, as far as they do whatever America tells them. But, such calculations about Afghanistan cannot work in other places. You know that the forces which forced the Taleban to withdraw were also involved fighting, their problem was that wherever they were about to advance, Pakistani aircraft would hit their positions in support of the Taleban. And, wherever the Taleban

had any shortcoming, the systematic army of Pakistan would intervene voluntarily. Now, the reverse is happening. Now, America is attacking the Taleban instead of the United Front which Pakistan was attacking. America also tied the hands of Pakistan so that it does not interfere from the other side. Yes, that role was indeed played by America, we accept that much. But, if America intends to compare this with other situations and use this process as a model and tested method for its future policies – which seems quite likely at the moment, because such assumptions exist in the While House and the American parliament – that would create another tragedy for mankind and world security, and it will very soon draw the attention of the Americans to the fact that they have made a strategic mistake. That is not a simple task.

The people of Afghanistan were in fact long tired of war, of clashes and of the selfishness of their domestic leaders and many other things. The way was already paved. Even if it was not America, any other powerful country, if it had become involved, could have done this and could have organized such a task. Of course, the future of this is very difficult to predict , because neither America has the capacity, acceptability or popularity among the people, nor there is any trust for it America. Others will not accept this either. We should all work together for the future of Afghanistan so that the people of Afghanistan do not fall into the trap of war, and so that their security, work and reconstruction of their country could get under way. And, if America wishes to show good will, it could also support and help. They the Americans should not think of turning that place Afghanistan into a military base, because the consequences of that can already be envisaged. It will result in dealing blows and receiving blows, it will have ups and downs; but, ultimately, nations cannot accept captivity.

You see that despite this massive deployment of forces the Jews in Palestine are faced with such circumstances. Fifty years have passed and it will be the same in 100 years. The Crusades lasted nearly 200 years and they ended like that. It’s the same now. At the end, nations will rise and resist. Amidst this, some will secure their immediate interests, and many will experience the loss.

On the whole, it seems today, the world situation and our region, is in need, on the one hand, of the alertness of nations and governments, and on the other, the realism and fairness of the arrogant powers who want to revitalize the colonial era by deploying troops, and occupying the previously abandoned military bases and securing a presence in the region. There is the hope that, God willing, this trend will secure the interest of justice and righteousness…

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2001/011214-text.html

Qods Day Speech (Jerusalem Day)
Chairman of Expediency Council Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani
December 14, 2001, Friday
Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Tehran, in Persian 1130 gmt 14 Dec 01
Translated by BBC Worldwide Monitoring

Kerry defends war on Libya

Libya-War-Plane

John Kerry was one of the first to push for another war in the Middle East, this time the war on Libya. Even before U.S.-initiated hostilities began, I sent Senator Kerry a critique of his dumb idea, with the title Are you out of your mind? — thereby omitting an adjective I really wanted to use. Months later, the yacht club Senator finally deigned to reply to me. Below is his justification for another one of the wars Democrats have championed. I have not changed Kerry’s text, only highlighted portions of interest.

What strikes me about Kerry’s response is that he repeats the lie that the intervention was to “avoid a massacre,” yet everywhere else the motivation for the intervention is more honestly described as regime change or seizing the opportunities of the Arab Spring. Kerry’s assumption that seeing the U.S. involved in (and currently failing at) another Middle East war would send a warning to other dictators does not seem to have impressed the Syrian dictatorship — the same one that helped the U.S. with extraordinary renditions.

Kerry cynically writes that failing to help Muslims would send the wrong message. There are many more opportunities to send the right message in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine. We’ve squandered them all.

As to why we invaded Libya and not, say, Syria? Kerry’s answer is so slippery it’s hard to believe he actually wrote, “we must weigh our ideals.” One weighs polls, not ideals.

Finally, Kerry says that bombing Libya in a “supporting” role is not war. Little matter that in the first days of the invasion it was hardly “supportive” and essentially a U.S. show. The senator seems to have succumbed to the same mental gymnastics as global warming deniers. Just deny it and it won’t exist.

But read his letter yourself. I’ll never vote for this weasel again.

Dear Mr. ___:

Thank you for your letter regarding U.S. actions in the NATO coalition preventing crimes against humanity in Libya.

Everything I believe about the proper use of American force and the ability of the community of nations to speak with one voice was reaffirmed when the world refused to stand by and accept a bloody final chapter of the uprisings sweeping across North Africa and the Middle East. With a mandate from the Arab League and the Gulf states, the United Nations Security Council approved a limited military intervention to avoid a massacre.

Neither the U.N. nor any nation should be drawn into military intervention lightly. But there were legitimate reasons for establishing a no-fly zone over Libya and forcing Gadhafi to keep his most potent weapons out of the fight.

First, what is happening in the Middle East could be the most important geostrategic shift since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Absent U.N./NATO resolve, the promise that the pro-democracy movement holds for transforming the Arab world could have been crushed. Other dictators would have seen the world’s failure to challenge Gadhafi as a license to act with impunity against their own people. The vast majority of the protesters in these countries are crying out for the opportunity to live a decent life, get a real job, and provide for a family. Abandoning them would have betrayed not only the people seeking democratic freedoms but the core values of the U.S. and other democratic nations. It would have reinforced the all-too-common misperception on the Arab street that America says one thing and does another. We are already spending billions of dollars to fight increasing extremism in many parts of the world. We didn’t choose this fight; it was forced on us, starting with 9/11. To fail to see the opportunity of affirming the courageous demand of millions of disenfranchised young people for jobs, respect and democracy would be ignorant, irresponsible and short-sighted. It would ignore our real national security interests and help extend the narrative of resentment toward the U.S. and much of the West that is rooted in colonialism and furthered by our own invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Second, the pleas for help came not just from the Libyan rebels, but from the Arab League and the Gulf states. Silently accepting the deaths of Muslims, even at the hand of their own leader, could have set back relations for decades. Instead, by responding and giving the popular uprising a chance to take power, the U.S. and our allies sent a message of solidarity with the aspirations of people everywhere that will be remembered for generations. Rather than be forced to debate “who lost Libya?” the free world is poised to say “remember Tripoli” every time demagogues question our motives.

Third, the particular nature of the mad man who was vowing to “show no mercy” to the “dogs” who dared challenge his rule demanded that his threats be taken seriously. Gadhafi is after all the man behind the bombing of Pan Am 103, which claimed the lives of 189 Americans. The military intervention in Libya sends a critical signal to other leaders in the region: They cannot automatically assume they can resort to large-scale violence to put down legitimate demands for reform without consequences. U.N. resolve in Libya can have an impact on future calculations. Indeed, the leaders of Iran should pay close attention to the resolve exhibited by the international community.

It is fair to ask, why Libya and not other humanitarian situations? The truth is that we must weigh our ideals, our interests and our capabilities in each case when deciding where to become involved. We must not get involved in another lengthy conflict in a Muslim country. With French and British willingness to lead on Libya, we do not need to take on the primary ownership of this conflict-and the Obama administration has made clear we will not. So the risks are manageable and, in my view, the rewards are potentially enormous.

The question of presidential authority is an important question. Some argue that our involvement in Libya is unconstitutional because it violates the provisions of the War Powers Act enacted in 1973. I am very familiar with the debate surrounding this act because it was created in response to the Vietnam War. Presidents have taken the view that the WPA does not include every single military operation and since it was enacted, only three of the numerous military actions we have participated in were authorized prior to engagement. Additionally, the WPA is very specific in its wording, requiring Congressional authorization only when our “Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities.” In Libya, we have no ground troops nor are we considering ground troops – in other words, our troops have not been introduced to these hostilities. Our troops are engaged in the conflict solely in a supporting role. President Obama and I both support the War Powers Act and neither of us believes that our intervention in Libya violates it. How

ever, I believe we are strongest when we speak with one voice – which is why on June 21, 2011, Senator McCain and I introduced a bipartisan resolution to provide limited authorization for our engagement in a supporting role in Libya. I cannot emphasize enough that this authorization only provides for the limited use of American forces for a limited time. This resolution is no blank check for the President, but is consistent with the vision of action outlined in his May 20th letter to congressional leaders. It makes clear the goals of U.S. policy in Libya: the departure of Qadhafi and his family and a peaceful transition to an inclusive government that ensures freedom and opportunity. It also plainly states that our participation in Libya will continue to consist of non-kinetic support of the NATO-lead operation in the form of intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue missions; Congress does not support deploying, establishing, or maintaining the presence of units and members of the U.S. Armed Forces on the ground in Libya. On June 28, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the resolution and I look forward to the full Senate’s consideration of the legislation.

I plan to maintain a close watch on our involvement in Libya. The President will be required to consult with Congress frequently regarding our efforts by providing regular briefings and reports. These must include an updated description of U.S. national security interests and policy objectives, a list of U.S. Armed Forces activities in Libya, an assessment of opposition groups and potential successor governments, and the legal and constitutional rationale for conducting military operations consistent with the WPA.

I believe that the passage of the Kerry-McCain resolution would demonstrate to the country and the rest of the world that the Congress of the United States and the President of the United States are committed to this endeavor. The Arab Awakening could be the single most important geostrategic shift since the fall of the Berlin Wall. If we support the legitimate aspirations of the Libyan people and assist them in their transition to democracy, I believe the positive implications for our own security will be immeasurable.

Thank you again for your interest in this critical issue and please do not hesitate to contact me in the future.

Oh, I won’t.

Congress – How I spent my Summer vacation

President Netanyahu

Last Spring we were presented with the unseemly sight of a foreign leader insulting a sitting president before both houses of Congress. On May 24th House Majority leader Eric Cantor escorted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu into the congressional chambers in what could easily have been mistaken for a State of the Union Address by the President. What made the display particularly unseemly was that Netanyahu used the opportunity to excoriate President Obama for his tepid criticism of Israel’s illegal settlements while the President was in London.

An article in the New York Times guessed at the motives: “With elections coming up next year, the lawmakers appeared eager to demonstrate their support for Israel as part of an effort to secure backing from one of the country’s most powerful constituencies, American Jews.” The article failed to mention that most congressional Zionists are fundamentalist Christians, not Jews, for whom Israel is not just another country, but a veritable Biblical Disneyland.

All this is bad enough, but now they’re at it again. This week we learn that, instead of meeting with constituents during the Summer recess, a fifth of American Congressmen will be accepting free junkets to Israel funded by the American Israel Education Foundation, one of AIPAC’s many PACs. According to the Jerusalem Post, 81 Congressmen, 55 Republicans and 26 Democrats, will visit Israel. Significantly, the number includes half of all freshman Republicans. The Republican delegation will be headed by Eric Cantor and the Democrats by Steny Hoyer.

Not to be outdone, the Israel Project, a right-wing group known for its vicious Muslim-bashing, is bringing 18 American ambassadors to Israel as well.

Obama at AIPAC

All this precedes an anticipated call for a Palestinian state at the United Nations in September. Similar to a call for Israel’s creation 60-some years ago, also at the UN, the call for a Palestinian state is largely symbolic because it is expected that the Obama administration, like Congress, fully subservient to a pro-Israel lobby, will cast a veto. This call for Palestinian statehood — without American “facilitation” — is a final recognition of the fact that the United States has been consistently biased and is no longer relevant to the peace process.

So, while the American economy is in shambles, a motley group of American Congressmen will be getting tans at the Dead Sea, a militarily-controlled area off-limits to Palestinians. They will be touring Jerusalem, visiting Tel Aviv, and possibly popping into Ramallah to visit a Palestinian caretaker government most Palestinians hold in contempt. They’ll be meeting with Israeli generals who will tell them how Israel is stopping terrorism in its backyard so that we don’t have it in ours.

Rep Eric Cantor (R-Israel)

If you do a little research online, you can find out about these junkets. According to legistorm.com, a number of groups send congressmen to Israel for these — I wouldn’t call them serious fact-finding missions — vacations. The American Israel Education Foundation is the major organizer, but other groups fund similar “educational” trips: the American Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League, the Brookings Institution, Center for Middle East Peace & Economic Cooperation, Friends of the Israel Defense Forces, IDT Corp., the Jewish Community Relations Council, Makhteshim Agan, New America Foundation, Project Interchange, the Republican Jewish Coalition, numerous local Jewish Federations, Tel Aviv University, Telos Group, United Jewish Appeals, and the World Jewish Congress. In all, Legistorm has recorded 1020 of these junkets to Israel since roughly 2001.

In contrast, there have been 2 fact-finding missions to Palestine.

It’s bad enough that Congress is being diverted from doing its job of fixing the economy by these trips and that the Likud gets more attention than constituents, but the worst part is that we are letting a foreign nation and its boosters corrupt and bias our foreign policy. In exchange for the campaign donations they disburse, these lobbyists assure that our Congressmen keep giving Israel $8 million a day in military assistance and producing vetoes at the United Nations.

All this will eventually result in a backlash, not only against Israel, but unfortunately against Jewish Americans too, whether they objected to this madness or supported it. It’s time to say: enough. And time to do the right thing and abstain from vetoing a Palestinian state in September.

Free Market Fundamentalism

Don’t give me that old time religion.

American Free Market fundamentalists claim that regulation, taxes, government interference, and lack of incentives are stifling job creation and business growth. No matter that many of them are already operating off-shore, pay no taxes, or are stashing their money out of reach of the IRS.

Capitalism isn't Working

Not enough people stop to think that the overall state of the world economy might also have something to do with it — what with Greece, Portugal, Spain, Ireland, Iceland, and now Italy in economic crisis. Wealthier Eurozone nations like Germany and France are on the hook for a lot of European debt, and this will ultimately hit them if weaker economies default. And then there’s Japan, which has been battling sluggish economic growth for over a decade. That’s a lot of uncertainty. More uncertainty than knowing you have to pay your taxes every year on April 15th at a predictable tax rate.

With so many capitalist nations sick or on life support, where are all the customers for American products and services going to come from? The reticence to expand businesses and hire people may actually have more to do with the dismal chances of recouping investments in an uncertain world. But it certainly is convenient to blame unions, government, regulators, and those calling for Big Business to pay its fair share of taxes instead of considering the scary proposition that Capitalism itself is on the ropes.

Surely there must be a country somewhere which provides all the incentives, tax relief and lack of regulation that Big Business craves, and that country would naturally have the most dynamic free-enterprise economy in the world — if the acolytes of Milton Friedman are right. And it is a given that all that economic success would occur in a democratic country with well-educated, free, and healthy citizens. Turns out, this is a Free Market Fundamentalist’s delusion.

Where is this supposed paradise?

Qatar and Paraguay have impressive GDP growth according to 2010 figures from the International Monetary Fund. On this same list on which the US finds itself 117th with 2.84% growth, there are a handful of economies with double-digit increases (Singapore, Taiwan, India, China) and approximately 70 with growth over 5%. Mexico and Bangladesh have twice the growth of the United States and Afghanistan three times our growth. Using CIA World Factbook figures, Taiwan and China both claim to have poverty rates half that of Switzerland’s 5%. India’s is 25% and ours is 12%. Even Syria has a lower poverty rate than the United States. Leon Panetta said so. But many of these countries are not free. For example, Singapore abolished trial by jury and for China they’re optional. Some of these economic “dynamos” are in war zones. Some are places you wouldn’t even want to visit.

So it would appear that economic growth can either lift a nation’s standard of living or leave millions in poverty even while profits are taken. But growth or recession can change in a heartbeat. Singapore’s economic growth, for example, is expected to plummet to a third of their 2010 figures as the world economy cools. However, ask a Free Market Fundamentalist why this phenomenon happens here in the US, and they’ll tell you that it’s due to too much regulation and taxation, both of which have been in decline since the Reagan administration.

So the next time a Tea Party person reads his voodoo economics off his palm, or quotes Ayn Rand or Milton Friedman, they’re just invoking their prophets and reciting their economic prayers. Like any religion, it has little to do with reality and everything to do with wishful thinking. Wall Street’s, not ours.

Who would Jesus hate?

A little side show at Rick Perry’s Christapalooza, “The Response” in Houston. Who would Jesus hate? Well, if you ask guest speaker Mike Bickle of IHOP, the answer would be: everyone besides Christians.

plugin:youtube

Nativism and “Judeo-Christian” values

Multiculturalism is a filthy word in their lexicon. Feminism is just as bad. Gays merit both contempt and physical punishment. Violence toward minorities has always been their trademark, and for decades they’ve attacked liberals, secularists, and those who do not share their Middle Ages mentality.

Ku Klux Klan

No, I’m not talking about the Taliban. I’m not even talking about Anders Breivik and his Knights Templar revivalists (who pathetically are a hundred years behind the KKK), or the Tea Party racists who want to bring back Jim Crow, although the description is certainly apt for any of these groups.

Meir Kahane

I’m talking about their cousins, the religious Right in Israel, particularly the Kahanists, who for years have been running amok with few or no consequences and who are now the model for violent extremists like Breivik and multiculturalism-haters in the Tea Party or rabid Zionists in the U.S. like Joe Kaufman. As incomprehensible as it seems to me for Jews to be involved in violent, hate-soaked, religion-perverting nationalism, it is more shocking that these particular fellow Jews (if indeed we share any values) are the model to which the rest of the haters aspire.

Last year a guidebook called “Torat HaMalech” was published in Israel. The subtitle of this book could easily have been “Who Would Moses Slay?” because it was nothing more than a 230-page justification for murdering non-Jews. If there had not been such an uproar, a second printing could easily have been accompanied by a forward by one of the many Israeli Islamophobes who inspired Anders Breivik.

Why do Jewish brownshirts and thugs like Baruch Marzel, a “former” Kahanist who had a little love-fest last month with Glen Beck at the Knesset, operate so freely in Israel and in the Occupied Territories and in the Orthodox communities of the United States? Because, as the U.S. State Department is fond of saying of the American relationship with Israel, there is hardly any “daylight” between them and the government. Israel’s Likudnik policies are fully congruent with the extremist right. Israel is slowly being ethnically cleansed of Arabs, both in the West Bank and the Galilee, and even at the cost of importing hundreds of thousands of non-Jewish Russians. As the Mizrachim might agree grudgingly, It’s never been about religion. It’s always been about race and culture, particularly the domination of Ashkenizi culture. And as always, religion is just a tree the nativists hide behind. Even “liberal” and “secular” Jews who have moved into the West Bank because of economic inducements prefer not to think too much about how they got their cheap housing. For them it’s not about religion either. When it comes right down to it, there’s never been enough “daylight” between the Left and Right in Israel. And that’s the triumph and corrupting influence of nationalism.

Zionism

Living in Israel today is like living in Anders Breivik’s Norwegian Utopia of 2083, where Muslims are being removed by state institutions and racial and cultural “purity” is well on track to being restored by a brutal form of nationalism. Israel’s twisted form of Revisionist Zionism has now become not merely the paradigm for European Christian nationalism but their How-To manual. But if by chance Breivik’s dreams come true, it won’t be a win for religion. And Europeans may not turn out to like all that concertina wire and concrete.

So when I hear Jews or Christians utter the phrase, “Judeo-Christian values,” I wince because a perverted and violent form of religious-themed nationalism is what it is has really come to mean.

Just another meaningless, cynical phrase falling from hate-filled, profanity-laced lips.

Elected officials with nothing better to do

Besides all the other pledges the Religious Right takes nowadays — Anti-Abortion, Balanced Budget Amendments, No New Taxes for the Super-Rich, Defense of Marriage for Straight People, Repudiation of Global Warming, Fighting Evolution, or Promoting the Return of Christian Shariah — I sometimes wonder if they simply take a basic pledge to waste their time on social issues that are of interest only to a narrow group of narrow people.

Today’s Time Waster is Michelle Bachman’s new pledge to the National Organization for Marriage to defend straight people from harassment by gays and their straight enablers of the sinful gay lifestyle.

I am truly grateful that hordes of rowdy homosexuals and angry lesbians have never come to my street to harass me while I’m trying to have a nice quiet evening with my wife or tried to recruit me to the other team. So far, I’m working on my 3rd decade of marriage without ever receiving a single threat or so much as a peep from this apparently scary constituency.

On the other hand, I am more than a little disturbed that NOM and its supporters aren’t as tolerant when it come to letting gay people have their own quiet evenings without being demonized or asked to attend re-education camps. If anything, the defense of loving relationships is under attack by NOM.

And doesn’t Michelle Bachmann have anything better to do?

time-waster

If I’m going to throw my vote away, I’d rather do it myself

While the details of the debt agreement are yet to be hammered out, the big picture is emerging and there’s little question that President Obama needlessly capitulated to the Tea Party, which impressively projects its extremist minority views on the entire nation. Yet despite the president’s weakness and failure to keep campaign promises, conventional wisdom is that Liberals and Progressives will still rally around him in the next election solely out of fear of the Tea Party.

Don’t count on it.

Tea Party Shariah is coming

Liberal Democrats are not very happy with the President at the moment. The Congressional Black Caucus, for example, has promised to oppose the debt agreement. “Seeing a Democratic President take taxing the rich off the table and instead push a deal that will lead to [massive] cuts is like entering a bizarre parallel universe – one with horrific consequences for middle-class families,” Progressive Change co-founder Stephanie Taylor wrote. “MoveOn’s 5 million members, along with the vast majority of Americans, will not stand for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefit cuts-not now, and not six months from now,” moveon.org’s Justin Ruben darkly hinted. Even House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi hasn’t been fully sold on the agreement, saying only “I look forward to reviewing the legislation with my caucus to see what level of support we can provide.” Liberals rightly regard Obama’s multiple capitulations as paying ransom to hostage takers — in a nation that officially never negotiates with terrorists.

Tea Party racist

About my only point of agreement with the Tea Party is that Mr. Obama will be a one-term president. This will not be due to the Tea Party’s savage racist attacks on the President. It’s been largely self-inflicted. Young people are not going to turn out to vote in such numbers as they did last time for a president who has now shown that the “audacity of hope” was merely a cynical slogan. Besides the youth, Mr. Obama has lost the support of many independents, Libertarians, and reflexive Democrats who supported him last time. His numbers are way down with minorities. Mainly, however, Mr. Obama has lost the support of the left wing of his own party.

Three years ago I hoisted a glass with friends after Mr. Obama was elected. But after watching the Democrats feebly continue (and expand) not only the Bush wars, bailouts for the rich, tax cuts for the wealthiest, and embracing Republican “trickle-down” economics and neoconservative foreign policy, it is impossible to continue supporting this bankrupt party. In the next election I’ll probably vote Green. If I’m going to throw my vote away, I’d rather do it myself than have the Democrats do it for me.

Bernie Sanders has it right

If there is concern about third party “spoilers,” the Democrats now have an opportunity to reevaluate the viability of the President and should follow Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sander’s advice to primary someone other than Mr. Obama. Otherwise, they’re going to lose the next election.

There is more than a kernel of truth in the joke that the Democrats are the Party of No Ideas and the Republicans are the Party of Very Bad Ideas. This country either needs some new ideas or some very good old ones because the Tea Party’s loony prescriptions are going to harm this country for decades. Yet the Democratic Party’s failure to present better policies is taking us nowhere. They seem to be forever peeking out the door, checking to see if it’s safe to support workers, consumers, minorities, or the environment — then darting indoors when they conclude it’s not.

Tea Party nativists

I don’t hold out any hope for the Republicans, who have spinelessly let their party be hijacked by Dick Armey, Grover Norquist, nativists, fundamentalists, “ex-gay” therapists, Birthers, the Christian Identity movement, Larouchites, Secessionists, and every species of ding-dong. But the Democratic flirtation with centrism has also failed. Their own Blue Dog Democrats are nothing but Republicans in disguise.

Obama tries on Lincoln's hat

Mr. Obama, meanwhile, has completely botched his Lincoln-esque “Team of Rivals” approach. Concession after concession hasn’t worked. Golf with Boehner hasn’t worked. Worse, far from building a “team of rivals,” Mr. Obama has actually resigned his job as team captain only to become the Gatorade carrier for the opposing team.

Gatorade aide

Democrats should not blame what used to be the Progressive wing of their own party for the coming defeat in November. Democrats could have remained true to their own values, but they abandoned those along with a constituency that elected them. Tragically, this could have been avoided.