I watched this video, 9/11 and American Empire recently, and then I saw the film Fair Game at the OFS Capitol Theatre last night. Fair Game is about the White House push for war in Iraq, and what happened when Joe Wilson spoke out about the way the White House lied the USA into war with Iraq. After seeing Fair Game, I think that Sean Penn would make a great President of the USA. I am also left wondering why Bush Administration officials are not being prosecuted for driving the nation into what was/is a clearly wrongful war—a war of aggression.

I also saw Howl! A film about Allen Ginsberg, poetry, and the USA. Thanks to OFS for consistently having such great films, both of these current ones are definitely important and well worth seeing.

Here is the video of several contributors to 9/11 and American Empire speaking in Berkeley in 2006 about the book and its contents.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3195658770053494633#

"With more than 2,500,000 U.S. personnel serving across the planet and [737] military bases spread across each continent, it's time to face up to the fact that our American democracy has spawned a global empire."
                  Metropolitan Books / By Chalmers Johnson

http://www.alternet.org/story/47998

    Anyone trying to say that we, in the U.S., do not live in an empire building nation is an idiot, plain & simple. Maybe even a plain & simple idiot.

    Think for a moment, at the shortest, about what natural resources reside in the boundaries of the U.S. that others in the world might covet. We have no oil to speak of, no big diamond mines, no gold mines, no lithium, no cheap labor. So what is it wer are afaid of losing.  I know, I know... everyone says we're afraid of losing our freedom(s). Ha!  Is some band of terrorists from the middle east going to sneak across the border from Canada and take away our right of free speech? Our own politicians have done a better job of that than any terrorist could ever hope to do. Are there secret service operatives from Venezuela trying to buy up all the TV air tme during an election cycle in order to infiltrate our political process? Our own Supreme Court is way ahead of them.

    What those in positions of power are afraid of losing is control. Control of the masses. Control of power. Control of our government. Control of other governments. Control of world resources for corporations that were once American, but have morphed into multi-nationals, that have no allegiance to the U.S. but still ask for, and get, protection from our military.

Some, what I think are, important questions to ask:

1) Is US international policy hegemonic (i.e. driven to dominate)? If you think not, then read no further. If you think so, then go to question two.

2) Now, if you understand US policy as hegemonic, do you think it is possible that the US exploits (i.e. takes advantage of) Israel in order to pursue a policy of "global dominance?" If no, then again, please read no further. If yes, please proceed to question three.

3) Now, if you think US policy may be exploitative of Israel, and given that Israel is a Jewish nation, do you think it is possible that US policy is anti-Semitic?

That's an idea I was trying to develop in this post re: Avi Shlaim aricle, which discusses in minor detail, the process which led to the creation of Israel, where there was controversy between Britain and the US over the selection of leadership here.

I hear the White House and the Pentagon are up in arms over this!

What a horror our government perpetrates and enables!

http://wikileaks.org/

The foreign policy of USA is intimately connected with Israel. Following World War Two, the keepers of political and economic power in the USA designed to further efforts toward dominance of global economics and politics.

There is a lot of support for divestment, and in that environment I think it is critical for people to keep in mind the bigger picture, which is of a long and calculated strategy of geo-political dominance led by keepers of political power.

The assassination of JFK. What really happened?

Do the mainstream accounts reflect the whole story? In the mainstream, is there adequate analysis of the environment surrounding the death of JFK? The answer is no.

Here's a compelling analysis by Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action co-founder James W. Douglass. It's titled JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters. The book contains an account that has been all but ignored by the mainstream press. So I think it is important to promote this important book through alternative channels.

Oliver Stone:

"...an extraordinary new book offers the best account I have read of this tragedy and its significance. That book is James Douglass's JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters. It is a book that deserves the attention of all Americans; it is one of those rare books that, by helping us understand our history, has the power to change it.

...

[additional quoted material]: "Why does it matter? The death of JFK remains a critical turning point in our history. Those who caused his death were targeting not just a man but a vision -- a vision of peace. There is no calculating the consequences of his death for this country and for the world. Those consequences endure. To a large extent, the fate of our country and the future of the planet continue to be controlled by the shadowy forces of what Douglass calls "the Unspeakable." Only by unmasking these forces and confronting the truth about our history can we restore the promise of democracy and lay claim to Kennedy's vision of peace."
[Oliver Stone: JFK and the Unspeakable]

I am feeling slightly under the weather. So I will not be attending tonight's City Council meeting to use my three minutes of public comment. Instead, I just sent this letter to the Council and to City Hall:

From:     Robert Whitlock
             [address redacted]

To:         Olympia City Council; City Staff; and Everyone

Imagine that the troops are actually doing the work that they are popularly claimed to be doing (though not without reasonable controversy) - that is, protecting us from irrational terrorists, (the "bad guys,") whom are bent upon destruction of our way of life (we're the "good guys!") Assuming that's the case, then hell yeah - thanks for protecting us.

But then again, what if it's not so simple—not so clear. What if the truth is something different than that reality as presented so often in mainstream media. What if the troops are actually protecting US access to global mineral resources? What if the troops are actually enabling the execution of a foreign policy of dominance? Should we still thank them if it turns out that they aren't protecting us? What if the truth is that they are actually protecting the interests of oil companies, war contractors, and the likes of Halliburton, et al.?

The reality on the ground—the truth as I see it, is that the USA is pursuing a foreign policy of dominance. That's to say that the goal of the US government is to enable domination of the global economy by US and Western, and other associated interests.

It can also be rightly stated and understood that the US attack on Iraq was unprovoked. And even though the attack of Afghanistan was (arguably) provoked by the 9/11 attacks, it also doesn't mean that the attack was justified (either by law or by legitimate defensive strategy.)