Marwahin, 15 July 2006: The anatomy of a massacre
A special report by Robert Fisk for the Independent
Published: 30 September 2006

In antiquity, Pliny wrote of the cliffs of Bayada. The chalk runs down to the Mediterranean in an almost Dover-like cascade of white rock, and the view from the top - just below the little Lebanese village of Chama'a - is breathtaking. To the south lies the United Nations headquarters and the Israeli frontier, to the north the city of Tyre, its long promentary, built by Alexander the Great, lunging out into the green-blue sea. A winding, poorly-made road runs down to the shore below Chama'a and for some reason - perhaps because he had caught sight of the Israeli warship off the coast - 58-year-old Ali Kemal Abdullah took a right turn above the Mediterranean on the morning of 15 July. In the open-topped pick-up behind him, Ali had packed 27 Lebanese refugees, most of them children. Twenty-three of them were to die within the next 15 minutes.
The tragedy of these poor young people and of their desperate attempts to survive their repeated machine-gunning from the air is as well-known in Lebanon as it is already forgotten abroad. War crimes are easy to talk about when they have been committed in Rwanda or Bosnia; less so in Lebanon, especially when the Israelis are involved. But all the evidence suggests that what happened on this blissfully lovely coastline two and a half months ago was a crime against humanity, one that is impossible to justify on any military grounds since the dead and wounded were fleeing their homes on the express orders of the Israelis themselves.
Mohamed Abdullah understands the reality of that terrible morning because his 52-year-old wife Zahra, his sons Hadi, aged six, and 15-year-old Wissam, and his daughters, Marwa, aged 10, and 13-year old Myrna, were in the pick-up. Zahra was to die. So was Hadi and the beautiful little girl Myrna whose photograph - with immensely intelligent, appealing eyes - now haunts the streets of Marwahin. Wissam, a vein in his leg cut open by an Israeli missile as he vainly tried to save Myrna's life, sits next to his father as he talks to me outside their Beirut house, its walls drenched in black cloth.
"From the day of the attack until now, lots of delegations have come to see us," Mohamed says. "They all talk and it is all for nothing. My problem is with a huge nation. Can the international community get me my rights? I am a weak person, unprotected. I am a 53-year-old man and I've been working as a soldier for 29 years, day and night, to be productive and to support a family that can serve society and that can be a force for good in this country. I was able to build a home in my village for my wife and children - with no help from anyone - and I did this in 2000, 23 years after I was driven out of Marwahin and I finished our new home this year." And here Mohamed Abdullah stops speaking and cries.
Marwahin is one of a string of villages opposite the Israeli border and, unlike many others further north, is inhabited by Sunni Muslim Lebanese, followers of the assassinated former prime minister Rafiq Hariri rather than the Shiite-dominated Hizbollah militia, which is supported and supplied by Syria and Iran. Most Sunnis blame Syria for Hariri's murder on 14 February last year.
While no friends of Israel, the Sunni community in Lebanon - especially the few thousand Sunnis of Marwahin who are so close to the frontier that they can see the red roofs of the nearest Jewish settlement - are no threat to Israel. For generations, they have intermarried - which is why most of the people in this tragedy hold the family name of al-Abdullah or Ghanem - and, had their parents been born a few hundred metres further south, they would - like the Sunni Muslim Palestinians who lived there until 1948 - have fled to the refugee camps of Lebanon when Israel was created.
Mohamed recalls with immense tiredness how his wife took his children south from Beirut to their family home in Marwahin on 9 July this year. The date is important because just three days later, Hizbollah members would cross the Israeli border, capture two Israeli soldiers and kill three others - five more were to die in a minefield later the same day - and Israel would respond with 34 days of air-strikes and bombardments that killed more than 1,000 Lebanese civilians. Hizbollah missiles would kill fewer than 200 Israelis, most of them soldiers.
Just down the hill from Marwahin, on Israeli territory, stands a tall radio transmission tower and on the morning of 15 July, the Israelis used loudspeakers on the tower to order the villagers to flee their homes. Survivors describe how they visited two nearby UN posts to appeal for protection, one manned by four members of the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organisation - set up after the 1948 war with Israel - and the other by Ghanaian soldiers of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, the same army which, much expanded with French, Italian, Turkish and Chinese troops, is now supposed to police the latest ceasefire in southern Lebanon. Both the UNTSO men and the Ghanaians read the rule-book at the villagers of Marwahin. Ever since the Israelis attacked the UNIFIL barracks at Qana in 1996, slaughtering 106 Lebanese refugees - again, most of them children - the UN has been under orders not to allow civilians into their bases. The UN, it seems, can talk mightily of the need to protect the innocent, f but will do precious little to shield them in southern Lebanon.
Mohamed's four children had travelled south with their mother to buy furniture for their newly-built home; their father and his six other children in Beirut were to join them the following week.
"When the Israeli soldiers were taken, the airport closed down and all the roads became dangerous," Mohamed says. "But the mobile phones still worked and I had constant conversations with my wife. I asked her what was happening in the village. She said the Israelis were bombing in the fields around the village but not in the village itself. She had no car and anyway it was too dangerous to travel on the roads. On 13 and 14 July, we spoke six or seven times. She was asking about those of our children who were with me. You see, she had heard that Beirut had been bombed so we were worried about each other."
Mohamed's calvary began when he turned to the Arabia television station on the morning of the 15th. "I heard that the people of Marwahin had been ordered by the Israelis to leave their homes within two hours. I tried to call my wife and children but I couldn't get through. Then after half an hour, Zahra called me to say she was in the neighbouring village of Um Mtut and that people had gone to the UN to seek help and been turned away."
Mohamed insists - though other villagers do not agree with this - that while the UN were turning the civilians away, a van drove into Marwahin containing missiles. The driver was a member of Hizbollah, he says, and its registration number was 171364 (Lebanese registrations have no letters). If this is true, it clearly created a "crisis" - to use Mohamed al-Abdullah's word - in the village. Certainly, once the ceasefire came into place 32 days later, there was a damaged van beside the equally damaged village mosque with a missile standing next to it. Human rights investigators are unclear of the date of the van's arrival but seem certain that it was attacked by the Israelis - probably by an air-fired rocket - after Marwahin was evacuated.
In her last conversation with her husband, Zahra told Mohamed that the four children were having breakfast in a neighbour's house in Um Mtut. "I told her to stay with these people," Mohamed recalls. "I said that if all the civilians were together, they would be protected. My brother-in-law, Ali Kemal al-Abdullah, had a small pick-up and they could travel in this." First to leave Marwahin was a car driven by Ahmed Kassem who took his children with him and promised to telephone from Tyre if he reached the city safely. He called a couple of hours later to say the road was OK and that he had reached Tyre. "That's when Ali put his children and my children and his own grandchildren in the pick-up. There were 27 people, almost 20 of them children."
Ali Kemal drove north from Marwahin, away from the Israeli border, then west towards the sea. He must have seen the Israeli warship and the Israeli naval crew certainly saw Ali's pick-up. The Israelis had been firing at all vehicles on the roads of southern Lebanon for three days - they hit dozens of civilian cars as well as ambulances and never once explained their actions except to claim that they were shooting at "terrorists". At a corner of the road, where it descends to the sea, Ali Kemal suddenly realised his vehicle was overheating and he pulled to a halt. This was a dangerous place to break down. For seven minutes, he tried to restart the pick-up.
According to Mohamed's son Wissam, Ali - whose elderly mother Sabaha was sitting beside him in the front - turned to the children with the words: "Get out, all you children get out and the Israelis will realise we are civilians." The first two or three children had managed to climb out the back when the Israeli warship fired a shell that exploded in the cab of the pick-up, killing Ali and Sabaha instantly. "I had almost been able to jump from the vehicle -- my mother had told me to jump before the ship hit us," Wissam says. "But the pressure of the explosion blew me out when I had only one leg over the railing and I was wounded. There was blood everywhere."
Within a few seconds, Wissam says, an Israeli Apache helicopter arrived over the f vehicle, very low and hovering just above the children. "I saw Myrna still in the pick-up and she was crying and pleading for help. I went to get her and that's when the helicopter hit us. Its missile hit the back of the vehicle where all the children were and I couldn't hear anything because the blast had damaged my ears. Then the helicopter fired a rocket into the car behind the pick-up. But the pilot must have seen what he was doing. He could see we were mostly children. The pick-up didn't have a roof. All the children were crammed in the back and clearly visible."
Wissam talks slowly but without tears as he describes what happened next. "I lost sight of Myrna. I just couldn't see her any more for the dust flying around. Then the helicopter came back and started firing its guns at the children, at any of them who moved. I ran away behind a tel [a small hill] and lay there and pretended to be dead because I knew the pilot would kill me if I moved. Some of the children were in bits."
Wissam is correct about the mutilations. Hadi was burned to death in Zahra's arms. She died clutching his body to her. Two small girls - Fatmi and Zainab Ghanem - were blasted into such small body parts that they were buried together in the same grave after the war was over. Other children lay wounded by the initial shell burst and rocket explosions as the helicopter attacked them again. Only four survived, Wissam and his sister Marwa among them, hearing the sound of bullets as they "played dead" amid the corpses.
His father Mohamed heard on the radio that a pick-up had been attacked by the Israelis at Bayada, perhaps 10km from Marwahin. "When I heard that the driver was Ali Kemal al-Abdullah, I knew - I knew - that my children were on that truck," he says, "because my brother-in-law would not have left them behind. He would have taken them with him. I had another brother in Tyre and I called him. He had heard the same news and was waiting at the hospital. He said it was too dangerous to travel from Beirut to Tyre. He said that my family were only wounded. I said that if they were only wounded, I wanted to speak to them. I spoke to Marwa. She said Wissam was in the operating theatre. I asked to speak to the others. My brother just said: 'Later.'"
No one who has travelled the roads of southern Lebanon under Israeli air attack can underestimate the dangers. But Mohamed and his nephew Khalil decided to make the run to Tyre in the afternoon. "We just drove fast, all the way," Mohamed remembers. "I got to the Hiram hospital and I found Ali, my brother, waiting for me. I saw Marwa and I asked about her mother and Hadi and Myrna and she said: 'I saw them in the pick-up, sleeping. When the ship hit us, I was blown out of the vehicle. Afterwards, I saw Mummy and my brother sleeping.'" Marwa told Mohamed that she had run from the pick-up with her 19-year-old cousin Zeinab.
When Mohamed drove to the city hospital in Tyre in search of Zahra, Hadi and Myrna, his brother refused to travel with him. "At this point, I knew there was something wrong. So I went to the hospital on my own and I found my wife and children in the fridge. It was a horrible shock. To this day, I feel like I am dreaming. And I cannot believe what happened. No one came to ask me about Marwa or Wissam who lost a vein in his leg. It seems no one knows that this house has martyrs."
Before the ceasefire in southern Lebanon, Mohamed was called to say that the medical authorities in Tyre wished to bury the dead of Marwahin temporarily in a mass grave. He attended their burial and returned to his much-battered village on 15 August - just over a month after his wife and two children were killed and in time for their final interment on 24 August. He found his house partially destroyed in the Israeli bombardment along with the van and its Hizbollah rockets. "Every day is worse than the one before for me," Mohamed says.
And he blames the world. The UN for giving no protection to his family, Hizbollah's "vanity" in starting a war with a more powerful enemy and the Israelis for destroying the life of his family. "Is Israel in a state of war with children? We need an answer, a response to f this question. We ask for a trial for this Israeli pilot who killed the children. He is a war criminal because he killed innocents for no reason. And what has happened? The south has been destroyed. The people were massacred. The Israelis were back on the soil of my land. I could see them when we buried Zahra and Hadi and Myrna. How can I lose my children and then see the Israelis here? We are ignored by the government and treated with neglect by the media and the political parties - including the Hizbollah - who were the cause of what happened."
Almost all the "martyr" pictures of the dead of Marwahin contain a ghostly photograph of Rafiq Hariri, the mightest Sunni Muslim of them all, who was assassinated last year. The martyrs of Marwahin have become identified with a man who sought peace rather than war with Israel. But at the graveyard on the edge of the tobacco-growing village, there is no end to mourning. I found two old women sitting beside the graves, weeping and beating themselves and pulling at their hair. One of them was Ali Kemal's wife.
Adel Abdullah took me round the graves. His sister-in-law Mariam lies in one of them, her body still containing the unborn child she was carrying when she died. So are her five children, Ali, 14, Hamad, 12, Hussein, 10, Hassan, eight, and two-year-old Lama.
"This is Myrna," Adel says, patting his hand gently on the concrete surface of the little girl's still unadorned grave. "This is Zahra, her mother, whom we put just behind her. And here is Hadi." The villagers have written their first names in Arabic in the concrete. "There is Naame Ghanem and her two children. And this is the grave of both Fatmi and Zeinab because we could not tell which bits of them belonged together. That is why the 23 dead of Marwahin have only 22 graves."
On the dirt road to the cemetery on the windy little hill above the village, there still lies a face mask worn by the young men carrying the decomposing bodies to their final grave. And just to the left of the dead, clearly visible to the Israeli settlers in their homes across the border, the villagers have left the remains of Ali Kemal Abdullah's Daihatsu pick-up. It is punctured by a hundred shrapnel holes, bent and distorted and burned. The children in this vehicle had no chance, killed outright or smashed to pieces as they lay wounded afterwards.
"If it is right that these people should be martyred in this way, well fine," Adel says to me. "If not, why did this crime take place? Why can't a country - a single country, your country - say that Israel was responsible for a war crime? But no, you are silent." A woman, watching Adel's anger, was more eloquent. "The problem," she said, "is that these poor people belonged to a country called Lebanon and our lives are worth nothing to anyone else. If this had happened in Israel - if all these children were Israeli and the Hizbollah had killed them all with a helicopter - the US president would travel to the cemetery each year for a memorial service and there would be war crimes trials and the world would denounce this crime. But no president is going to come to Marwahin. There will be no trials."
Mohamed al-Abdullah weeps beside his wounded son in Beirut. "I consider this to have been a useless war and with these atrocious massacres it is innocent civilians who paid the price. Those who died are resting but we who are living are paying a price every day. That price is paid by the living who suffer. Why should I pay the price of something I didn't choose? I will say just one thing to you. God have mercy on Rafiq Hariri, a man of education and reconstruction. In God's name, I hope his children walk in his path. My wife loved Sheikh Rafiq so much. In this house, my wife's whole life changed after his assassination. Before, Zahra was not interested in politics but from the day his car was bombed, she listened to the news every day. Before bed, she wanted to hear any news. And she said to me once, 'I hope I don't die, so I will know who killed Rafiq Hariri'."
A UN investigation is still underway into Hariri's murder. An Israeli investigation is to start into the disastrous performance of its army during the war. The Hizbollah still claims it won a "divine victory" in July and August of this year. UNIFIL, which turned the refugees of Marwahin away on 15 July, stated that when they were removing the children's bodies, their soldiers came under fire. Human Rights Watch is still investigating the killings of civilians at Marwahin and other locations and wrote of them before the war ended. "The Israeli military," it said in its initial report, "did not follow its orders [to civilians] to evacuate with the creation of safe passage routes, and on a daily basis Israeli warplanes and helicopters struck civilians in cars who were trying to flee, many with white flags out the windows, a widely accepted sign of civilian status ... On some days, Israeli war planes hit dozens of civilian cars, showing a clear pattern of failing to distinguish between civilian and military objects." International law makes it clear that it is forbidden in any circumstances to carry out direct attacks against civilians and that to do so is a war crime. Human Rights Watch states that "war crimes" include "making the civilian population or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities the object of attack".
Lama Abdullah was the youngest victim of the Marwahin 23. Ali Kemal's wife Sabaha was in her eighties. At least six of the children were between the ages of one and 10. The Israeli helicopter pilot's name is, of course, unknown.

Day the East End said 'No pasaran' to Blackshirts
Audrey Gillan
Saturday September 30, 2006
The Guardian

They built barricades from paving stones, timber and overturned lorries. Women threw the contents of chamber pots on to the heads of policemen and children hurled marbles under their horses and burst bags of pepper in front of their noses.
Next Wednesday marks the 70th anniversary of the day that Jews, communists, trade unionists, Labour party members, Irish Catholic dockers and the people of the East End of London united in defiance of Sir Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists and refused to let them march through their streets.

Shouting the Spanish civil war slogan "No pasaran" - "They shall not pass" - more than 300,000 people turned back an army of Blackshirts. Their victory over racism and anti-Semitism on Sunday October 4 1936 became known as the Battle of Cable Street and encapsulated the British fight against a fascism that was stomping across Europe.
Mosley planned to send columns of thousands of goose-stepping men throughout the impoverished East End dressed in uniforms that mimicked those of Hitler's Nazis. His target was the large Jewish community.
The Jewish Board of Deputies advised Jews to stay away. The Jewish Chronicle warned: "Jews are urgently warned to keep away from the route of the Blackshirt march and from their meetings. "Jews who, however innocently, become involved in any possible disorders will be actively helping anti-Semitism and Jew-baiting. Unless you want to help the Jew baiters, keep away." The Jews did not keep away. Professor Bill Fishman, now 89, who was 15 on the day, was at Gardner's Corner in Aldgate, the entrance to the East End. "There was masses of marching people. Young people, old people, all shouting 'No Pasaran' and 'One two three four five - we want Mosley, dead or alive'," he said. "It was like a massive army gathering, coming from all the side streets. Mosley was supposed to arrive at lunchtime but the hours were passing and he hadn't come. Between 3pm and 3.30 we could see a big army of Blackshirts marching towards the confluence of Commercial Road and Whitechapel Road."
Marbles
"I pushed myself forward and because I was 6ft I could see Mosley. They were surrounded by an even greater army of police. There was to be this great advance of the police force to get the fascists through. Suddenly, the horses' hooves were flying and the horses were falling down because the young kids were throwing marbles."
Thousands of policemen were sandwiched between the Blackshirts and the anti-fascists. The latter were well organised and through a mole learned that the chief of police had told Mosley that his passage into the East End could be made through Cable Street.
"I heard this loudspeaker say 'They are going to Cable Street'," said Prof Fishman. "Suddenly a barricade was erected there and they put an old lorry in the middle of the road and old mattresses. The people up the top of the flats, mainly Irish Catholic women, were throwing rubbish on to the police. We were all side by side. I was moved to tears to see bearded Jews and Irish Catholic dockers standing up to stop Mosley. I shall never forget that as long as I live, how working-class people could get together to oppose the evil of racism."
Max Levitas, now 91, was a message runner and had already been fined £10 in court for his anti-Mosley activities. Two years before Cable Street, the BUF had called a meeting in Hyde Park and in protest Mr Levitas whitewashed Nelson's column, calling people to the park to drown out the fascists. Mr Levitas went on to become a Communist councillor in Stepney.
"I feel proud that I played a major part in stopping Mosley. When we heard that the march was disbanded, there was a hue and cry and the flags were going wild. They did not pass. The chief of police decided that if the march had taken place there would be death on the road - and there would have been," he said.
"It was a victory for ordinary people against racism and anti-Semitism and it should be instilled in the minds of people today. The Battle of Cable Street is a history lesson for us all. People as people must get together and stop racism and anti-Semitism so people can lead an ordinary life and develop their own ideas and religions."
Beatty Orwell, 89, was scared and excited. "People were fighting and a friend of mine was thrown through a plate glass window."

An Ode to George Berkeley!

In my last year of high school I had to do a project on George Berkeley, the influential 18th Century Irish Philosopher. At the time I hated the philosophies he espoused and finished the project, very poorly, kicking and screaming. Such was my dislike for the subject matter that as soon as the project was over, I promptly blotted Berkeley from mind and memory.

Today I was having a discussion on philosophy and I was saying that I had studied philosophy as a teenager. I became extremely frustrated when I couldn't remember which philosopher I had done my project on. I immediately started researching philosophers until Berkeley popped into my mind. So, I thought I'd write a quick tribute to George Berkeley for treating him with such disdain as an 18 year old.

George Berkeley was born 12 March 1685 and died 14 January 1753. He sits within in the philosophical schools of Idealism and Empiricism. David Hume of the Scottish Enlightenment movement was one of Berkeley's main influences. His major philosophical achievement was the development of what is now called subjective idealism This theory describes 'a relationship between human experience of the external world, and that world itself, in which objects are nothing more than collections (or bundles) of sense data in those who perceive them.' (From Wikipedia)

'This theory can be summed up in his dictum, "Esse est percipi" ("to be is to be perceived"). The theory states that individuals can only directly know sensations and ideas of objects, not abstractions such as "matter". '(Taken from Wikipedia)

I like the limerick by Ronald Knox summerising Berkeley's philosophy:

There was a young man who said "God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If he finds that this tree
Continues to be
When there's no one about in the Quad."
"Dear Sir, your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the Quad
And that's why this tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by Yours faithfully, God."

I wont write anymore here but there is further info on his published works and life on Wikipedia

What do you eat as a vegetarian?!

I often get asked what I eat as a vegetarian. This question shocks me initially (I feel everyone should be enlightened in regards to vegetarianism these days!) but on reflection I realise that everyone is only acting on what they know and how they were raised (how can someone fed meat and three veg everyday know any different?). I thought I would add some interesting vege recipes here to enlighten the meat eaters and provide delicious recipes for us all to use. There are great recipes on the Vegetarian Society website including ideas and recipes for holidays and festivals.

Griddled Aubergine Stacks (suitable for vegans)
This recipe is completely dairy free, but if you like cheese then these vegetable stacks are lovely topped with a slice of griddled Halloumi. The sauce should be dotted with lots of tiny pieces of tomato and pepper, which form the 'confetti'.

A little olive oil
1 large aubergine, cut into rings
2 beef tomatoes, skinned and cut into ringszest of one lemon, finely chopped
Few sprigs of fresh sage, chopped
Few sprigs of fresh thyme, chopped
Few fresh chives, finely chopped
salt and freshly ground black pepper
Balsamic vinegar, to taste
4 slices Halloumi cheese, lemon zest, to garnish
chives or chive flowers, to garnish

Tomato confetti sauce:
1 tablespoon olive oil
1 small onion, finely chopped
1 garlic clove, crushed
225g/8oz fresh ripe full-flavoured tomatoes, skinned and finely chopped
15Oml/1/4 pint vegetarian white wine
1 yellow or red pepper, roasted, skin removed and cut into strips, then
across into diamonds
1 teaspoon balsamic vinegar
Salt and pepper

First make the sauce. Heat the olive oil in a suacepan and fry the onion gently with the garlic. Add half of the chopped tomatoes and the white wine and cook for five minutes. Blend unfit smooth. Mix in the rest of the chopped tomatoes with the pepper pieces and 1 teaspoon of balsamic vinegar. Season to taste.

Brush the griddle with olive oil and cook the aubergine slices so that they are seared with stripes. Put on one side and keep warm. Grill the beef tomato slices gently.

Mix the lemon and herbs together and season well. On individual serving plates, layer the aubergine, tomato and herb mix. Drizzle with a little balsamic vinegar. Repeat until all the layers are used up and top with a slice of tomato and a sprinkling of the herb mixture. Grill the slices of Halloumi and arrange on top of each stack, garnished with lemon zest and chives. Drizzle tomato confetti sauce around the plate and decorate with chives or chive flowers. Serve warm.

Docherty Wilkins Impresses at NZ Fashion Week

I just want to take this opportunity to congratulate my friends Heather and Rory Docherty on their inaugural show at NZ Fashion Week. It was great to see that TV One's Sharon Fergusson picked their show as the stand out show of the day and an exciting label to watch for the furture. You can see the images from the catwalk on Runway Reporter and a review by Julie Roulston on FashioNZ here.

I previously wrote a post on Docherty Wilkins which you can read here.

Rise Up Against the Empire

Chavez's speech to the UN has really stirred up a lot of discussion around the world. One of the interesting asides from his speech is that Noam Chomsky's book, 'Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States,' is now #1 on Amazon.com's best-seller list. There are some good reviews of the book on Amazon.

In Hegemony or Survival Chomsky argues that current U.S. policies in Afghanistan and Iraq are not specific responses to September 11, but rather the continuation of a foreign policy-an "imperial grand strategy"-in which the United States has attempted to "maintain its hegemony through the threat or use of military force." You can read further opinion on Chavez's speech on the blog Reading The Maps and here is a link to a BBC story

FYI Chavez's speech is reproduced in full below:

President Hugo Chavez, Address to the United Nations
19/09/06 "Information Clearing House"

Representatives of the governments of the world, good morning to all of you. First of all, I would like to invite you, very respectfully, to those who have not read this book, to read it.Noam Chomsky, one of the most prestigious American and world intellectuals, Noam Chomsky, and this is one of his most recent books, 'Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States.'" [Holds up book, waves it in front of General Assembly.] "It's an excellent book to help us understand what has been happening in the world throughout the 20th century, and what's happening now, and the greatest threat looming over our planet.

The hegemonic pretensions of the American empire are placing at risk the very survival of the human species. We continue to warn you about this danger and we appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our heads. I had considered reading from this book, but, for the sake of time," [flips through the pages, which are numerous] "I will just leave it as a recommendation.It reads easily, it is a very good book, I'm sure Madame [President] you are familiar with it. It appears in English, in Russian, in Arabic, in German. I think that the first people who should read this book are our brothers and sisters in the United States, because their threat is right in their own house.

The devil is right at home. The devil, the devil himself, is right in the house."And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came here. Right here." [crosses himself] "And it smells of sulfur still today.Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world.I think we could call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday's statement made by the president of the United States. As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums, to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world.An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a title: "The Devil's Recipe."As Chomsky says here, clearly and in depth, the American empire is doing all it can to consolidate its system of domination. And we cannot allow them to do that. We cannot allow world dictatorship to be consolidated.

The world parent's statement -- cynical, hypocritical, full of this imperial hypocrisy from the need they have to control everything.They say they want to impose a democratic model. But that's their democratic model. It's the false democracy of elites, and, I would say, a very original democracy that's imposed by weapons and bombs and firing weapons.What a strange democracy. Aristotle might not recognize it or others who are at the root of democracy.What type of democracy do you impose with marines and bombs? The president of the United States, yesterday, said to us, right here, in this room, and I'm quoting, "Anywhere you look, you hear extremists telling you can escape from poverty and recover your dignity through violence, terror and martyrdom."Wherever he looks, he sees extremists. And you, my brother -- he looks at your color, and he says, oh, there's an extremist. Evo Morales, the worthy president of Bolivia, looks like an extremist to him. The imperialists see extremists everywhere. It's not that we are extremists. It's that the world is waking up. It's waking up all over. And people are standing up. I have the feeling, dear world dictator, that you are going to live the rest of your days as a nightmare because the rest of us are standing up, all those who are rising up against American imperialism, who are shouting for equality, for respect, for the sovereignty of nations.

Yes, you can call us extremists, but we are rising up against the empire, against the model of domination.The president then -- and this he said himself, he said: "I have come to speak directly to the populations in the Middle East, to tell them that my country wants peace."That's true. If we walk in the streets of the Bronx, if we walk around New York, Washington, San Diego, in any city, San Antonio, San Francisco, and we ask individuals, the citizens of the United States, what does this country want? Does it want peace? They'll say yes. But the government doesn't want peace. The government of the United States doesn't want peace. It wants to exploit its system of exploitation, of pillage, of hegemony through war.It wants peace. But what's happening in Iraq? What happened in Lebanon? In Palestine? What's happening? What's happened over the last 100 years in Latin America and in the world? And now threatening Venezuela -- new threats against Venezuela, against Iran? He spoke to the people of Lebanon. Many of you, he said, have seen how your homes and communities were caught in the crossfire. How cynical can you get? What a capacity to lie shamefacedly. The bombs in Beirut with millimetric precision? This is crossfire? He's thinking of a western, when people would shoot from the hip and somebody would be caught in the crossfire.This is imperialist, fascist, assassin, genocidal, the empire and Israel firing on the people of Palestine and Lebanon.

That is what happened. And now we hear, "We're suffering because we see homes destroyed.'The president of the United States came to talk to the peoples -- to the peoples of the world. He came to say -- I brought some documents with me, because this morning I was reading some statements, and I see that he talked to the people of Afghanistan, the people of Lebanon, the people of Iran. And he addressed all these peoples directly. And you can wonder, just as the president of the United States addresses those peoples of the world, what would those peoples of the world tell him if they were given the floor? What would they have to say?And I think I have some inkling of what the peoples of the south, the oppressed people think. They would say, "Yankee imperialist, go home." I think that is what those people would say if they were given the microphone and if they could speak with one voice to the American imperialists.

And that is why, Madam President, my colleagues, my friends, last year we came here to this same hall as we have been doing for the past eight years, and we said something that has now been confirmed -- fully, fully confirmed.I don't think anybody in this room could defend the system. Let's accept -- let's be honest. The U.N. system, born after the Second World War, collapsed. It's worthless.Oh, yes, it's good to bring us together once a year, see each other, make statements and prepare all kinds of long documents, and listen to good speeches, like Abel's yesterday, or President Mullah's . Yes, it's good for that. And there are a lot of speeches, and we've heard lots from the president of Sri Lanka, for instance, and the president of Chile. But we, the assembly, have been turned into a merely deliberative organ. We have no power, no power to make any impact on the terrible situation in the world. And that is why Venezuela once again proposes, here, today, 20 September, that we re-establish the United Nations.

Last year, Madam, we made four modest proposals that we felt to be crucially important. We have to assume the responsibility our heads of state, our ambassadors, our representatives, and we have to discuss it.The first is expansion, and Mullah talked about this yesterday right here. The Security Council, both as it has permanent and non-permanent categories, (inaudible) developing countries and LDCs must be given access as new permanent members. That's step one. Second, effective methods to address and resolve world conflicts, transparent decisions.Point three, the immediate suppression -- and that is something everyone's calling for -- of the anti-democratic mechanism known as the veto, the veto on decisions of the Security Council.Let me give you a recent example. The immoral veto of the United States allowed the Israelis, with impunity, to destroy Lebanon. Right in front of all of us as we stood there watching, a resolution in the council was prevented.

Fourthly, we have to strengthen, as we've always said, the role and the powers of the secretary general of the United Nations.Yesterday, the secretary general practically gave us his speech of farewell. And he recognized that over the last 10 years, things have just gotten more complicated; hunger, poverty, violence, human rights violations have just worsened. That is the tremendous consequence of the collapse of the United Nations system and American hegemonistic pretensions. Madam, Venezuela a few years ago decided to wage this battle within the United Nations by recognizing the United Nations, as members of it that we are, and lending it our voice, our thinking. Our voice is an independent voice to represent the dignity and the search for peace and the reformulation of the international system; to denounce persecution and aggression of hegemonistic forces on the planet. This is how Venezuela has presented itself.

Bolivar's home has sought a nonpermanent seat on the Security Council. Let's see. Well, there's been an open attack by the U.S. government, an immoral attack, to try and prevent Venezuela from being freely elected to a post in the Security Council.The imperium is afraid of truth, is afraid of independent voices. It calls us extremists, but they are the extremists.And I would like to thank all the countries that have kindly announced their support for Venezuela, even though the ballot is a secret one and there's no need to announce things.But since the imperium has attacked, openly, they strengthened the convictions of many countries. And their support strengthens us. Mercosur, as a bloc, has expressed its support, our brothers in Mercosur. Venezuela, with Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, is a full member of Mercosur. And many other Latin American countries, CARICOM, Bolivia have expressed their support for Venezuela. The Arab League, the full Arab League has voiced its support. And I am immensely grateful to the Arab world, to our Arab brothers, our Caribbean brothers, the African Union. Almost all of Africa has expressed its support for Venezuela and countries such as Russia or China and many others.I thank you all warmly on behalf of Venezuela, on behalf of our people, and on behalf of the truth, because Venezuela, with a seat on the Security Council, will be expressing not only Venezuela's thoughts, but it will also be the voice of all the peoples of the world, and we will defend dignity and truth.Over and above all of this, Madam President, I think there are reasons to be optimistic. A poet would have said "helplessly optimistic," because over and above the wars and the bombs and the aggressive and the preventive war and the destruction of entire peoples, one can see that a new era is dawning.As Sylvia Rodriguez says, the era is giving birth to a heart. There are alternative ways of thinking. There are young people who think differently. And this has already been seen within the space of a mere decade. It was shown that the end of history was a totally false assumption, and the same was shown about Pax Americana and the establishment of the capitalist neo-liberal world. It has been shown, this system, to generate mere poverty. Who believes in it now?What we now have to do is define the future of the world. Dawn is breaking out all over. You can see it in Africa and Europe and Latin America and Oceanea. I want to emphasize that optimistic vision.We have to strengthen ourselves, our will to do battle, our awareness. We have to build a new and better world.Venezuela joins that struggle, and that's why we are threatened.

The U.S. has already planned, financed and set in motion a coup in Venezuela, and it continues to support coup attempts in Venezuela and elsewhere.President Michelle Bachelet reminded us just a moment ago of the horrendous assassination of the former foreign minister, Orlando Letelier.And I would just add one thing: Those who perpetrated this crime are free. And that other event where an American citizen also died were American themselves. They were CIA killers, terrorists.And we must recall in this room that in just a few days there will be another anniversary. Thirty years will have passed from this other horrendous terrorist attack on the Cuban plane, where 73 innocents died, a Cubana de Aviacion airliner.And where is the biggest terrorist of this continent who took the responsibility for blowing up the plane? He spent a few years in jail in Venezuela. Thanks to CIA and then government officials, he was allowed to escape, and he lives here in this country, protected by the government.And he was convicted. He has confessed to his crime. But the U.S. government has double standards. It protects terrorism when it wants to. And this is to say that Venezuela is fully committed to combating terrorism and violence. And we are one of the people who are fighting for peace.Luis Posada Carriles is the name of that terrorist who is protected here. And other tremendously corrupt people who escaped from Venezuela are also living here under protection: a group that bombed various embassies, that assassinated people during the coup. They kidnapped me and they were going to kill me, but I think God reached down and our people came out into the streets and the army was too, and so I'm here today.But these people who led that coup are here today in this country protected by the American government. And I accuse the American government of protecting terrorists and of having a completely cynical discourse.We mentioned Cuba. Yes, we were just there a few days ago. We just came from there happily.And there you see another era born.

The Summit of the 15, the Summit of the Nonaligned, adopted a historic resolution. This is the outcome document. Don't worry, I'm not going to read it.But you have a whole set of resolutions here that were adopted after open debate in a transparent matter -- more than 50 heads of state. Havana was the capital of the south for a few weeks, and we have now launched, once again, the group of the nonaligned with new momentum.And if there is anything I could ask all of you here, my companions, my brothers and sisters, it is to please lend your good will to lend momentum to the Nonaligned Movement for the birth of the new era, to prevent hegemony and prevent further advances of imperialism.And as you know, Fidel Castro is the president of the nonaligned for the next three years, and we can trust him to lead the charge very efficiently.Unfortunately they thought, "Oh, Fidel was going to die." But they're going to be disappointed because he didn't. And he's not only alive, he's back in his green fatigues, and he's now presiding the nonaligned.So, my dear colleagues, Madam President, a new, strong movement has been born, a movement of the south. We are men and women of the south.With this document, with these ideas, with these criticisms, I'm now closing my file. I'm taking the book with me. And, don't forget, I'm recommending it very warmly and very humbly to all of you.We want ideas to save our planet, to save the planet from the imperialist threat. And hopefully in this very century, in not too long a time, we will see this, we will see this new era, and for our children and our grandchildren a world of peace based on the fundamental principles of the United Nations, but a renewed United Nations.And maybe we have to change location. Maybe we have to put the United Nations somewhere else; maybe a city of the south. We've proposed Venezuela.You know that my personal doctor had to stay in the plane. The chief of security had to be left in a locked plane. Neither of these gentlemen was allowed to arrive and attend the U.N. meeting. This is another abuse and another abuse of power on the part of the Devil. It smells of sulfur here, but God is with us and I embrace you all.May God bless us all. Good day to you.

War on Junk food continued...

New Zealand is following the UK's crusade to ban junk food in schools. The NZ governenment is banning foods such as sugery drinks and pies in schools, in a bid to combate NZ's growing child obesity problem. Reproduced below is a NZ Herald article on the new governemnt policy and another article on Jamie Oliver's continued campaign for healthy eating in UK schools.

Unhealthy foods get chop from tuck shops
Friday September 22, 2006
By Martin Johnston
Unhealthy food will be banned from school tuck shops next year under policies designed to help control a worsening obesity epidemic.
Pies, sugary soft drinks and chips face the chop under the policies unveiled yesterday.
They also aim to cut TV watching and encourage more physical activity.
Underlining the policies' significance, five Government ministers lined up to announce them at the Aotea Centre alongside the World Health Organisation's week-long Asia-Pacific regional meeting.
Main changes will be:
* Development of national nutritional guidelines for schools and early childhood centres. These will identify food and drinks in three categories - suitable for everyday consumption and to be promoted, for limited provision during the school day and not recommended to be provided.
* Enforcement of the guidelines by school boards, to be audited by the Education Review Office.
"It essentially is a banning," said Education Minister Steve Maharey. "The guidelines mean that something like the high level of sugar, salt and fat on the shelves of some schools won't be able to be there in future."
Health Minister Pete Hodgson said the three-tier classification system was yet to be developed but could be the "traffic-light" system of red, orange or green labels now used in Europe.
This could later be applied to the country's whole food supply.
He expects the new school system to be operating by the start of the next academic year.
The regulations will require school boards "to develop policies that promote and achieve healthy nutrition and reduce the consumption of unhealthy foods and drinks".
They will also apply to children's lunch boxes although, unlike for canteens, schools will not be expected to "achieve" healthy foods. The requirement will be to have policies on bringing healthy food and drink.
"We're not policing what goes into a [lunch] box," said Mr Maharey.
"It's really about trying to develop a good, positive lifestyle that kids will want to live, not brow-beating them into not having a cookie now and again."
The nutrition guidelines and regulations are among 10 schemes announced yesterday in a $67 million attack on obesity.
It is part of the $76.1 million committed in this year's Budget for anti-obesity work over four years.
Others are nutrition training for teachers, guidelines - yet to be written - on food advertising to children, expanding the Push-Play social marketing campaign to promote "screen-free" time, encouraging public servants, including at the Ministry of Health, to lead by example in being more physically active and using music, screen and sport stars to promote healthy choices to young people.
The Government is worried about a blow-out in public health system costs from the escalation of obesity-caused type 2 diabetes, a problem which may mean the current generation of children will live shorter lives than their parents.
The adult rate of obesity has more than doubled since 1977 - 21 per cent are now classified as obese, a further 35 per cent as overweight. Among children, 10 per cent are obese and 21 per cent are overweight.
Principals Federation national president Pat Newman said schools supported improving nutrition and many were doing so - most primary schools had removed sugary soft drinks - but he objected to the Government forcing nutrition rules on schools and to the lack of consultation.
"Before [this] we could do as much as we can; now we're legally the meat in the sandwich."
The Food Industry Group's executive director, Rob Bree, said it was involved in developing the school food classification system and doubted the Government would ban any food.
Greens health spokeswoman Sue Kedgley said the school nutrition policies were "a great start in transforming school food".
Junk-food ban in schools leaves nasty taste for some
Ashleigh Webster and her friends don't see the sense in banning unhealthy foods from schools.
"I think it's dumb," the 15-year-old Auckland Girls' Grammar School student said yesterday.
"It's our own choice really. It's up to the school if they want to let us eat unhealthy food.
"I get enough healthy food at home. I normally bring lunch - a sandwich of salad and meat, fruits, something that's not healthy to balance it out, like a muesli bar or chips."
Ashleigh sometimes buys a pie on the way to school, which is cheaper than buying one at school.
But older pupils Rachelle Peterson, 18, and Jacquelyn Myocevich, 17, can see good reason for removing unhealthy foods such as pies.
"All those studies show fat food makes you tired," said Jacquelyn.
"Eat fruit and it will make you more enthusiastic about going to class for the last two periods rather than going home to sleep.
"Our cafe has a lot of variety. Salads. Sandwiches. We have more healthy food available than junk foods. We have pies."
Sandwiches cost more than $3, she said, and pies $2.
Rachelle: "If someone has got $2 they will buy whatever is cheaper, which is the pie."

'Idiot' junk-food parents feel the wrath of Jamie
TV chef Oliver accuses adults of sabotaging healthy eating crusade
By Lauren Veevers and Anthony Barnes
Published: 17 September 2006

Jamie Oliver last night vented his anger at parents who wilfully ignore and even "sabotage" his healthy eating manifesto.
The TV chef-turned-nutrition campaigner has convinced the Government and schools to revamp children's menus, but there has been continuing resistance from some parents.
The latest evidence of a backlash came on Friday when two mothers from Rotherham, South Yorkshire, collected fast food orders and made deliveries at the gates of a school. They claimed Oliver's regime made kids too picky. Julie Critchlow, one of the mums, said: "Food is cheaper and better at local takeaways."
In a one-off programme, Return to Jamie's School Dinners, to be screened on Channel Four tomorrow night, Oliver rants about how parents are "arseholes" and "tossers" for giving their children fizzy drinks and crisps. His fury was prompted by an off-screen exchange with a mother he met during filming who was giving her one-year-old child Coca-Cola and said she would not make shepherd's pie because it was "too posh".
Many children around the UK are turning away from hot dinners. Figures from the School Food Trust show the number of children who had school dinners last year has dropped by 5.8 per cent in primary schools and 4.9 per cent in secondary schools.
A spokesman for Oliver said he had come up against parents who gave their children nothing but crisps, chocolate and fizzy drinks for lunch, never cooked from scratch and had never given their children fruit.
"All of these things made him angry," the spokesman said. "That's why he wants to see all kids having a nutritious hot school meal... even if they're eating rubbish when they get home."
At Thomas Tallis school in Greenwich, south-east London, Oliver ordered a junk food amnesty and the pupils, grudgingly, gave up their junk food in return for a burger bar where they could get salads and freshly cooked burgers.
The burger bar has been successful. Takings for meals at the school reached £4,000 in the first three days of this term - compared with around £2,400 in the first three days of last term.
However, research commissioned by Tesco revealed last week that more than two million children skip school dinners and use the money to buy junk food. One in four aged four to 16 preferred to have chips for lunch, and 14 per cent admitted binning fruit.
Jamie Oliver last night vented his anger at parents who wilfully ignore and even "sabotage" his healthy eating manifesto.
The TV chef-turned-nutrition campaigner has convinced the Government and schools to revamp children's menus, but there has been continuing resistance from some parents.
The latest evidence of a backlash came on Friday when two mothers from Rotherham, South Yorkshire, collected fast food orders and made deliveries at the gates of a school. They claimed Oliver's regime made kids too picky. Julie Critchlow, one of the mums, said: "Food is cheaper and better at local takeaways."
In a one-off programme, Return to Jamie's School Dinners, to be screened on Channel Four tomorrow night, Oliver rants about how parents are "arseholes" and "tossers" for giving their children fizzy drinks and crisps. His fury was prompted by an off-screen exchange with a mother he met during filming who was giving her one-year-old child Coca-Cola and said she would not make shepherd's pie because it was "too posh".
Many children around the UK are turning away from hot dinners. Figures from the School Food Trust show the number of children who had school dinners last year has dropped by 5.8 per cent in primary schools and 4.9 per cent in secondary schools.
A spokesman for Oliver said he had come up against parents who gave their children nothing but crisps, chocolate and fizzy drinks for lunch, never cooked from scratch and had never given their children fruit.
"All of these things made him angry," the spokesman said. "That's why he wants to see all kids having a nutritious hot school meal... even if they're eating rubbish when they get home."
At Thomas Tallis school in Greenwich, south-east London, Oliver ordered a junk food amnesty and the pupils, grudgingly, gave up their junk food in return for a burger bar where they could get salads and freshly cooked burgers.
The burger bar has been successful. Takings for meals at the school reached £4,000 in the first three days of this term - compared with around £2,400 in the first three days of last term.
However, research commissioned by Tesco revealed last week that more than two million children skip school dinners and use the money to buy junk food. One in four aged four to 16 preferred to have chips for lunch, and 14 per cent admitted binning fruit.

Conflict Resolution
BBC World is running a Peacemakers Season throughout September and posing the question, “can conflicts be resolved through peaceful means?"

This question is one I have been thinking about for a while, not an easy question to answer. My background is, I did a degree in International Communication and I am currently considering doing my masters in International Relations/Politics/ Conflict Resolution/Peace Studies. I don’t have any answers, only still half formed opinions. I would like to start a discussion here and gather others’ points of view on this topic.
Some of the skills that can be developed to help resolve conflict in a peaceful and constructive way are:
· Building bridges not walls – looking for common ground.
· Understanding that not all conflict is bad, it can be constructive and lead to a better situation for all, if dealt with in the correct way. Differences can stimulate social progress, rather than precipitate violence.
· Develop self understanding and understanding of others.
· Develop Empathy - walk in their shoes. Don’t let differing viewpoints overwhelm the respect for one another and shared interests and concerns.
· Develop listening skills - listen, state your feelings, and offer a plan of action.
· Be Assertive but do not personally attack.
So, please give your opinions and I will add more to this discussion too....

The debate over junk food and childrearing continues in Britain. I have commented in previous posts about healthy eating and Jamie Oliver's new TV series 'Return to School Dinners.' Here's some more food for thought:

Junk culture killing childhood, experts warn
Helen Mooney, Tuesday September 12, 2006 EducationGuardian.co.uk

British children are being "poisoned" by a culture of processed food, computer games and over-competitive education, a group of academics and authors claimed today.
In an open letter to the Daily Telegraph, 110 teachers, psychologists and children's authors have called on the government to prevent the death of childhood.
The authors of the letter - who include children's writers Philip Pullman and Jacqueline Wilson, the former children's laureate Michael Morpurgo and the director of the Royal Institution, Baroness Greenfield - warn that children need to develop as human beings.
"Since children's brains are still developing, they cannot adjust as full-grown adults can, to the effects of ever more rapid technological and cultural change," the letter says.
"They still need what developing human beings have always needed, including real food (as opposed to 'junk'), real play (as opposed to sedentary, screen-based entertainment), first-hand experience of the world they live in and regular interaction with the real-life significant adults in their lives," they write.
The experts condemn Britain's increasingly "target-driven" education system and urge the government to recognise children's need for more time and space to develop, demanding an urgent public debate on child rearing in the 21st century.
"They also need time. In a fast-moving, hyper-competitive culture, today's children are expected to cope with an ever earlier start to formal schoolwork and an overly academic test-driven primary curriculum," they say.
Mr Morpurgo said there was a "drip, drip, drip effect" of academic pressure and marketing which was killing childhood.
"It's gradually soaking like a poison into the culture," he said. "There is less room for reading, for dreaming, for music, for drama, for art, and simply for playing."
The letter was circulated by Sue Palmer, an ex-headteacher and author of the book Toxic Childhood, and Richard House, a senior lecturer at the research centre for therapeutic education at Roehampton University in London.
"Children's development is being drastically affected by the kind of world they are brought up in," Ms Palmer told the Daily Telegraph. "It is shocking."
"A child's physical and psychological growth cannot be accelerated. It changes in biological time, not at electrical speed. Childhood is not a race."

Personally I agree that we need to give children a more holistic, healthy, creative childhood. There has been debate already over this letter to the Daily Telegraph - read some comments here.

The Big Question: What is neo-conservatism, and how influential is it today?
By Rupert Cornwell, Washington Correspondent
Published: 12 September 2006
Why are we asking this question now?
David Cameron yesterday delivered a major foreign policy speech warning against the spread of anti-Americanism, yet distancing himself from the neo-conservatives who have dominated US foreign policy under President Bush. Mr Cameron describes himself as a "liberal conservative" rather than a neo-conservative.
But what is neo-conservatism?
The ideology is difficult to define. It used to be a blend of liberal democracy and hawkish foreign policy. Today the term refers to idealistic hawkishness. The philosophy has been around since the middle of the 20th century, if not earlier. Some trace its origins to the liberals and social progressives who strongly backed the Second World War. One of its founders was the US intellectual and writer Irving Kristol, a former Trotskyist who later described himself as "a liberal mugged by reality". In the 1950s and 1960s the neo-conservatives adopted a similarly robust view towards the Soviet Union, breaking first with the anti-capitalist New Left, then with the Washington foreign policy establishment that came to support Cold War détente with Moscow.
How did it become identified with the Republicans?
For a long period it wasn't. Harry Truman and John Kennedy in some respects could have been labelled neo-conservatives. What changed things was the more dovish national security stance of the Democrats, after George McGovern won the party's presidential nomination in 1972. Thereafter Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson of Washington, an anti-Soviet hawk, became a focus for the movement. Among his staffers were Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, intensely pro-Israeli and later two of the most influential neo-cons under Ronald Reagan and George W Bush. They opposed not only the McGovernite Democrats, but also the "pragmatist" détente policy of Nixon, Kissinger and Ford.
What happened after that?
The neo-conservatives first really came into their own under Ronald Reagan, who decided to challenge the Soviet "evil empire" head on. But they gradually parted ways with Reagan as he shifted towards détente with the reformist Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. More idealistic neo-conservatives were also dismayed by President Reagan's backing for anti-democratic regimes simply because they were US allies and anti-Soviet. Reagan's support for Israel also fell short of neo-con expectations.
Why did the neo-cons triumph?
Ideologically, because of the collapse of Communism and the Soviet Union. This was seen as vindication for the neo-conservatives - even though the great moment came when the supremely pragmatic George Bush senior was President. They remained in opposition under Bill Clinton, but in the 1990s quietly came to dominate Republican foreign policy. Their manifesto was A Project for the New American Century, their mouthpiece the Weekly Standard magazine, edited by Bill Kristol (son of Irving). Among the signatories of PNAC were Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld the present Defence Secretary, as well as Wolfowitz and Lewis Libby, chief of staff for Cheney when the latter became Vice-President. PNAC called for higher defence spending, the promotion of democracy and freedom around the world, and the creation of a world order "friendly to our security, prosperity and values". George W Bush's victory in 2000 gave them power; 9/11 and the "war on terror" gave them their cause.
What effects has it had?
Enormous, and most would say, disastrous effects. The ousting of Saddam Hussein had been on the mind of Paul Wolfowitz, for one, since the early 1990s when he was a senior Pentagon official under the first President Bush. The decision to allow Saddam to stay in power after the 1991 Gulf War was a mistake, he believed. The "war on terror" gave Wolfowitz - now deputy Defence Secretary - and his fellow believers their chance. Neo-cons at the Pentagon and the Vice-President's office twisted the intelligence to prove that Saddam had WMDs and imply he had a hand in 9/11. For neo-cons, Iraq was to be a test run for the reform of the entire Middle East and the spread of democracy in the region.
By any yardstick, the policy has been a failure. Iraq is in chaos, and the Middle East has become less rather than more stable. Around the world, anti-Americanism has increased hugely. Neo-conservatives in their turn have been "mugged by reality" - the reality being that even the sole superpower America is not omnipotent, and that ancient civilisations are not to be transformed by elections alone. Above all, they stand guilty of naivete.
How does George Bush fit in?
After September 11, the administration's security policy was powered by the alliance of Cheney and Rumsfeld (both, incidentally, hardline "realists" rather than conservatives with an ideological mission), who dominated an inexperienced President. But the balance shifted as Iraq went wrong. Bush realised the US could not go it alone. Condoleezza Rice, a more moderate figure, gained influence, as the stars of both Cheney and Rumsfeld waned. Wolfowitz left to become chairman of the World Bank, while Libby resigned after his indictment in the CIA leak affair.
Have the neo-cons been discredited?
Not necessarily. Their credibility has been shredded by Iraq, but Kristol and others blame the failure not on the original grand design, but on the poor organisation of the occupation by Rumsfeld and his minions at the Pentagon. The original principles of PNAC are still very much the cornerstone of US foreign policy.
The crucial test case of neo-con influence is now Iran. In contrast with Iraq, Bush's instinct seems to be to let diplomacy run its course in the dispute over Tehran's suspected nuclear weapons programme. But neo-cons are urging him (and/or Israel) to take no chances and bomb Iran, just as Iraq was attacked three years ago.
Do the neo-cons have a British equivalent?
Most certainly, in the person of Tony Blair. The Labour leader is in many respects an identikit US neo-con. Obviously Britain, unlike America, doesn't have the power to reshape the world. Nor is Mr Blair as unabashedly pro-Israel as Mr Bush. But he is a left-of-centre politician who espouses a robust and ideals-driven foreign policy, despite being fully aware of the unpopularity of his chief ally, and of UK domestic opposition to the neo-cons' main policy, the invasion of Iraq. If that isn't neo-conservatism, what is?
Has neo-conservatism proved successful in practice?
Yes...
* The neo-cons have to their credit the expulsion of Saddam from Kuwait, and the defeat of Slobodan Milosevic in Bosnia and Kosovo
* The "war on terror" has largely destroyed al-Qa'ida - or at least its capacity to strike directly at targets on US soil
* It cemented Republican dominance in the battle of ideas in the US, and helped the party win the elections of 2002 and 2004
No...
* Neo-conservative policies have led to a geo-strategic disaster for the US in Iraq and, possibly, in Afghanistan
* It is responsible for a worldwide surge in anti-Americanism, giving the impression the US did not care what anyone else thought
* It inspired the US tilt towards Israel which has made a settlement of the Palestinian dispute all but unimaginable

The bitter legacy of 9/11
Published: 11 September 2006 (Independent)

2,973 Total number of people killed (excluding the 19 hijackers) in the September 11, 2001 attacks
72,000 Estimated number of civilians killed worldwide since September 11, 2001 as a result of the war on terror
2 Number of years since US intelligence had any credible lead to Osama bin Laden's whereabouts
2,932 Total number of US servicemen and women killed in Afghanistan and Iraq since September 2001
1,248 Number of published books relating to the September 11 attacks
$119m Ticket sales for anti-Bush documentary Fahrenheit 9/11
$40bn Airline industry losses since September 2001
2009 Date when the official memorial will open at the World Trade Centre site
0 Hours of intelligence training provided to new FBI agents before 9/11. Now they get 24.
91 per cent Terror cases from FBI and others that US Justice Dept declined to prosecute in first eight months of 2006
11 Weeks the 9/11 commission's final report was top of New York Times' non-fiction best-seller list
117 Number of UK service personnel killed in Iraq since invasion
40 Number of UK personnel killed in Afghanistan since invasion
7 per cent People in UK who think US-led war on terror is being won, according to YouGov
1 Those charged in US with a crime in connection with 9/11
455 Number of detainees at Guantanamo Bay
77 per cent Percentage of people in the UK who believe Tony Blair's Middle East policy has made Britain a terrorist target (YouGov)
4,000 Number of UK troops left in Iraq after British-controlled provinceshanded back to Baghdad
18 The number of times that undercover investigators with fake IDs have breezed through US border checkpoints in a test by the Government Accountability Office
$8bn The amount the US will spend this year on hunting Bin Laden and other terrorists
2,973 Total number of people killed (excluding the 19 hijackers) in the September 11, 2001 attacks
72,000 Estimated number of civilians killed worldwide since September 11, 2001 as a result of the war on terror
2 Number of years since US intelligence had any credible lead to Osama bin Laden's whereabouts
2,932 Total number of US servicemen and women killed in Afghanistan and Iraq since September 2001
1,248 Number of published books relating to the September 11 attacks
$119m Ticket sales for anti-Bush documentary Fahrenheit 9/11
$40bn Airline industry losses since September 2001
2009 Date when the official memorial will open at the World Trade Centre site
0 Hours of intelligence training provided to new FBI agents before 9/11. Now they get 24.
91 per cent Terror cases from FBI and others that US Justice Dept declined to prosecute in first eight months of 2006
11 Weeks the 9/11 commission's final report was top of New York Times' non-fiction best-seller list
117 Number of UK service personnel killed in Iraq since invasion
40 Number of UK personnel killed in Afghanistan since invasion
7 per cent People in UK who think US-led war on terror is being won, according to YouGov
1 Those charged in US with a crime in connection with 9/11
455 Number of detainees at Guantanamo Bay
77 per cent Percentage of people in the UK who believe Tony Blair's Middle East policy has made Britain a terrorist target (YouGov)
4,000 Number of UK troops left in Iraq after British-controlled provinceshanded back to Baghdad
18 The number of times that undercover investigators with fake IDs have breezed through US border checkpoints in a test by the Government Accountability Office
$8bn The amount the US will spend this year on hunting Bin Laden and other terrorists

Quinoa, Soul Food of the Andes
Last night I had a lovely dinner with friends and learnt a good recipe using Qunioa. Called a supergrain, quinoa is highly nutritious and can supply us with all of the body's requirements: carbohydrates, fats, protein, vitamins, minerals, and fiber.
Quinoa is gluten free and considered an ideal food for those prone to food allergies. Common allergens include grains from the grass family such as corn and wheat. Quinoa, a leafy grain, is not in the grass family, making it beneficial for people who cannot tolerate common grains like wheat, corn, rye, barley, and oats.
For more information on Quinoa click here

Quinoa and Cashew Nut Pilau
Ingredients
1 large or 2 medium
onions
4
cloves garlic
15 ml
cooking oil
1 each
red and green pepper
10 ml
ground cumin
10 ml
ground coriander
200 gms
Quinoa
400 ml
water
10 ml
basil
200 gm
frozen sweetcorn
salt and pepper
50 gm
Cashew Nuts

Method
Preparation
Top, tail and chop fine the onions and the garlic.De-pith, de-stalk and chop small the peppers.Rinse the quinoa under cold water in a fine sieve for 2 minutes or more.In a small bowl, cover the frozen corn with boiling water from the kettle.
Cooking
Put the cashews in the oven on a tray, and toast at Gas Mark 3 for about 20 minutes, or until they are golden brown.In a le Creuset pan, saute the onions and garlic in the cooking oil until the onions are translucent.Add the peppers, cumin, and coriander and continue to stir fry for a few minutes.Add the rinsed quinoa and water to the pan, bring to the boil, turn down and simmer for 15 minutes.Drain the corn and add it to the quinau with the basil.Continue to cook until all of the water has been absorbed.
Assembly
Turn the quinoa out into a serving dish and sprinkle with the toasted cashews.
To serve
Often served as a side dish (e.g. to a curry) but we had it last night as the main course, accompanied by a salad that had avocado and chickpeas in it (very yummy!).

Images of and by women

TV One is playing a docu-drama, Sunday 10th September, that is coming under fire for being inaccurate and misleading. Read the Scoop article below and the useful links for further commentary. Keep your wits about you tonight if you are planning to watch it! A modified poster for the tele-movie scheduled for world wide release starting tonight in New Zealand.
Source URL

INTRODUCTION: NZ's state broadcaster Television One is tonight and tomorrow screening an ABC Television docu-drama series called "Path to 9/11". The docu-drama series - starring Harvey Keitel and being released simultaneously around the globe - is currently under attack in the United States because it contains historically inaccurate information but claims to be based on the official "9/11 Commission Report".
Research in recent days in the liberal blogosphere shows it was produced – seemingly in secret – by a shadowy organization connected to the Christian Right. According to those who have seen advance copies of the docu-drama it seeks to attribute blame for the events of 9/11 to failures in counter terrorism under the watch of former Democratic Party president Bill Clinton.
In recent days leading Democrats (including Al Gore, Bill Clinton and John Kerry) and senior US historians have called for the docu-drama to be yanked and a concerted effort to put commercial pressure on Disney and ABC to get the series pulled is also underway. A similar advertising boycott campaign run by Republicans was attributed with getting a miniseries critical of the Reagans pulled last year.
Leading educational provider Scholastic has even circulated a note to School teachers encouraging them to use the show to point out the ways in which propaganda sometimes distorts history for political ends (the full note to social studies teachers is included below).
The following material was all found on the liberal US political forum website DemocraticUnderground.Com where the story has been running hot for several days. Click on the headlines below for more source material and discussion.

For further background see also... William Rivers Pitt: Clinton, 9/11 and the Facts.
- Alastair Thompson - Scoop Co-Editor
******************
"Path to 9/11" produced by RW activists: goal to "transform Hollywood"
This morning, an interview with Harvey Keitel (who stars in "The Path to 9/11") reveals the following:
Keitel: Yea, I had questions about events – material I was given in the Path to 9/11 that I did raise questions about. Yes, I had some conflicts there.
Q: How was that met?
Keitel: With discussion... ummm with argument. When I received the script it said ABC history project – I took it to be exactly what they presented to me. History – and that facts were correct. It turned out not all the facts were correct and ABC set about trying to heal that problem. In some instances it was too late because we had begun.
Yesterday, DUer shewhomustbeobeyed discovered that David Cunningham, director of "The Path to 9/11," is the son of Loren Cunningham, founder of the worldwide evangelical group Youth With a Mission.
Youth With a Mission has an "auxiliary branch" called The Film Institute.
Members of The Film Institute write:
TFI's first project is a doozy: simply being referred to as: The Untitled History Project, it is already being called the television event of the decade and not one second has been put to film yet. Talk about great expectations!
Our goal is to help filmmakers, actors, technicians, etc. realize their God given potential and purpose in perhaps the most influential sphere of modern culture - film and television.
Here's more information on the "Untitled History Project":
Our next big project is to assist in the development of the new YWAM auxiliary - The Film Institute (TFI). The Film Institute is dedicated to a Godly transformation and revolution TO and THROUGH the Film and Television industry;
TO it, by serving, living humbly with integrity in what is often a world driven by selfish ambition, power an money - transforming lives from within, and THROUGH it, by creating relevant and evocative content which promotes Godly principles of Truth married with Love.
The Untitled History Project Begins Production July 25th.
Mysteriously, the pages containing those quotes - which were freely available on the Internet until yesterday - have been deleted. Here are links to the now-deleted originals:
http://www.markandkrista.com/4559.html http://www.markandkrista.com/30257.html
… to see much more… CLICK HERE
******************
Albright and Berger Call On ABC To ‘Withdraw’ Path to 9/11
An excerpt:
"Whether your broadcast purports to be based on the 9/11 Report in whole - or only in part - is increasingly beside the point. The dramatic impact of a costly but carelessly produced film will invariably overwhelm the impression of any government document.
Amidst alarming reports that irresponsible theories about the events of 9/11 have begun to gain currency with the American people, you should not want to lend your personal reputation to a production which seems likely to instigate new and dangerous falsehoods. And so we ask that you use your influence to persuade ABC to withdraw the broadcast altogether. Failing that, we urge you to sever your relationship with this grossly misleading production."
******************
Variety: ABC Considering Pulling "Path to 9/11"
Under Fire, ABC Mulls Yanking MiniBy WILLIAM TRIPLETT
"The Path to 9/11" is looking a lot like "The Reagans, Part II."
Bill Clinton loyalists are demanding wholesale changes to the upcoming miniseries -- and while ABC is making some snips, the alterations, insiders say, may not please the Dems.
But a bombshell decision may happen anyway: Sources close to the project say the network, which has been in a media maelstrom over the pic, is mulling the idea of yanking the mini altogether.
As for specific criticisms -- and changes -- the original mini contained a scene in which then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger declines to give the CIA authority to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, even when CIA operatives know where the al-Qaeda leader is.
more at:http://www.variety.com/VR1117949675.html
******************
Gore on Path to 9/11
By all accounts, “The Path to 9/11″ is riddled with inaccuracies and contains material that directly contradicts the factual findings of the 9/11 Commission. I am deeply concerned that ABC is considering going forward with their plans to broadcast this so-called docudrama. The lessons from the events leading up to that tragedy are too important to trivialize, and it would be fundamentally irresponsible to air such distortions.
******************
ABC Is Now Exposed for What They Are
The veil is now gone. The pretense that ABC is a news organization is gone. The myth of the “liberal news media” is dead.
Our national corporate news media have been screwing the Democrats and our country for years. They receive free licenses from the federal government and in return they have the responsibility to provide news in “the public interest”. Yet they don’t care at all about that sacred responsibility. Instead, they use their privilege to provide slanted news that ensures that pro-corporate Republicans will stay in power and in return will enact legislation that ensures ever more accumulation of wealth and power to themselves. It now should be evident to all: ABC “News” is not a news organization. Rather, they are a propaganda machine that exists for the benefit of their parent corporation.
ABC’s so-called “docudrama” of the 9-11 attacks, which they intend to air this Sunday, should prove all of this once and for all. They are about to air a film that pretends to be informative and based on facts. Yet it should be abundantly clear by now that ABC’s only purpose in airing “The path to 9-11” is to influence this November’s elections in favor of the Republican Party. Over the past several years they have perpetrated one outrage after another (along with much of the rest of the corporate news media). This time they have hopefully gone too far and unmasked themselves. This should be the end of the great myth of the “liberal media”.
The film’s chief script writer, Cyrus Nowrasteh, is an ultra-conservative political hack and friend of Rush Limbaugh. The film was shown only to a conservative audience. The executive producer of the film is a member of the Bush administration’s PR team. ABC provided right wing bloggers with an advanced copy of the film, while excluding progressive bloggers from participating in a conference call about the film. And when faced with mounting criticism of the file, they yanked the official film blog in an effort to cut off further discussion. The film has been criticized by Richard Clarke, the man in charge of counter-terrorism during the time in question, as being inaccurate and biased. It has been disavowed by Richard Ben-Veniste of the 9-11 Commission. It has been criticized as inaccurate by members of the Clinton administration with first hand knowledge of the matter, and ex-President Clinton’s lawyer has written a letter to ABC that explains in detail how the film deviates from the truth as contained in the 9-11 Commission Report – and yet ABC continues to refuse to let anyone from the Clinton administration view the film. An FBI agent who consulted on the film resigned as a consultant because ABC refused to remove the inaccuracies. And the families of the 9-11 victims have criticized ABC for impairing the ability to compose an historically accurate accounting of the facts surrounding the 9-11 attacks because of their insistence on mixing revisionist history with entertainment.
Yet after all of this ABC remains obstinate. Their lame excuse for continuing to plan to air the film is that it is not a documentary, but a “dramatization”. Yet they still claim that it is based on the 9-11 Commission Report, which clearly is a lie, and they even bill it as a “public service.”
This is just the latest in a long line of abuses of their public trust
Consider how ABC’s daily political briefing, The Note, has handled a series of issues, as described by Eric Boehlert in “Lapdogs”:
They made a great big deal out of the trial of Senator Hillary Clinton’s former campaign finance director, David Rosen, for his handling of a fundraiser during Clinton’s 2000 campaign for the Senate, writing about it for 14 days in one month, including this entry: “The Justice Department case against David Rosen, national finance chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate race, is getting stronger … which could be disastrous for the Senator’s ambitions.” Yet when Rosen was acquitted they didn’t find that news important enough to mention.
When the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” (SBVFT) came out with their transparently phony allegations against John Kerry, right before the 2004 Presidential election, The Note posted nearly a hundred links to the story during one 17 day stretch. And when the New York Times published the results of an investigation which identified the Republican operatives behind the story, as well as many of the contradictions in the stories of SBVFT, The Note mocked the Times story as irrelevant.
But any news unfavorable to Republicans is either ignored or criticized by The Note. With regard to the Iraq war, they lost interest after things began turning sour, and they mocked the Downing Street Memo (“The left is unappeasable on the issue of the Downing Street Memo”) and Cindy Sheehan. They dismissed stories of Ken Starr’s conflict of interest during his investigation of Bill Clinton. They ignored the Jeff Gannon story and the news of Karl Rove’s role in the CIA leak investigation. They put positive spin on Bush’s handling of the Katrina disaster. And as the story of Tom DeLay’s corrupt activities began to emerge, The Note had this to say:
There is an iron triangle of liberal interest groups, Democratic congressional staffers, and media jackals… who have never identified with or liked Tom DeLay (and what he stands for) and are enjoying every minute of their conspiring to bring him down. Almost every accusation swirling around DeLay involves actions by him that have exact analogues among other members of Congress of both parties.
The list goes on and on. The main difference between ABC and FOX News would appear to be that ABC does a better job of pretending to be a real news organization, rather than a propaganda machine for the Republican Party.
What now?
I am so happy to see the Democrats responding aggressively to the outrage that ABC intends to start propagating on Monday. After years of being subjected to all means of abuse by the corporate news media, this may be the closest thing to open warfare between them and the Democratic Party that has yet occurred.
I believe that that is a good thing. The Democrats have undergone the torture of a thousand cuts by the corporate media over the last several years. They are in a terrible dilemma because, given the great power of our corporate news media, attacking them poses great risks.
Yet, Democrats may have no reasonable alternative choice other than to come out swinging against the corporate media. If not for consistently biased news coverage the Democrats would now control both Houses of Congress and the Presidency, and be represented by a much more progressive U.S. Supreme Court (by at least two seats) than we now have. The Democrats are the Party of the people, and the Republicans are the Party of the corporations, the wealthy and the powerful. A great deal of their power rests with the slanted news of the corporate news media, without which they would either have to begin to adopt a pro-people agenda or they could not win another election.
It may be that Democrats now have an opportunity to go over the heads of those who provide biased news to our country, directly to the people, to expose our corporate media for what they are. I pray that they can do that.
******************
GOV DEAN: Calls On Disney/ABC To REVEAL-$$$-FUNDERS Of "Path To 9/11"
Today, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean called on ABC/Disney to reveal who poured $40 million into the slanderous 9/11 propoganda film they plan to start airing starting Sunday, and issued the following statement:
"It's deeply disappointing that ABC would put something on the air that has been proven to have factual inaccuracies about one of the most important events in our nation's history. ABC should not air this distortion of history.
"The fact that the writer/producer of the piece is a well known conservative raises additional concerns and questions. The American people deserve to know who funded this $40 million dollar slanderous propaganda. Use of the public airwaves is a privilege conferred upon broadcasters in the public interest. It comes with a responsibility to the American people and a responsibility to the truth."
******************
Top Historians Demand ABC Yank 9/11 Film
Historian's Letter to ABC chief Robert Iger
Dear Robert Iger:
We write as professional historians, who are deeply concerned by the continuing reports about ABC’s scheduled broadcast of “The Path to 9/11.” These reports document that this drama contains numerous flagrant falsehoods about critical events in recent American history. The key participants and eyewitnesses to these events state that the script distorts and even fabricates evidence into order to mislead viewers about the responsibility of numerous American officials for allegedly ignoring the terrorist threat before 2000.
The claim by the show’s producers, broadcaster, and defenders, that these falsehoods are permissible because the show is merely a dramatization, is disingenuous and dangerous given their assertions that the show is also based on authoritative historical evidence. Whatever ABC’s motivations might be, broadcasting these falsehoods, connected to the most traumatic historical event of our times, would be a gross disservice to the public. A responsible broadcast network should have nothing to do with the falsification of history, except to expose it. We strongly urge you to halt the show’s broadcast and prevent misinforming Americans about their history.
Sincerely,
Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.Sean Wilentz, Princeton UniversityMichael Kazin, Georgetown UniversityLizbeth Cohen, Harvard University,Nicholas Salvatore, Cornell University;Ted Widmer, Washington College;Rick Perlstein, Independent Scholar;David Blight, Yale University;Eric Alterman, City University of New York.
******************
Scholastic Material Now Tells Students Look 4 ABC Fibs
Dear Teacher of Social Studies, grades 9-12
As you know, Scholastic has provided to teachers and students information, background, and explanations of current U.S. and world issues since our first Scholastic magazine was published in 1920 by my father, M.R. Robinson, the founder of our company.
Since then, Scholastic has explained the contemporary world in a clear, understandable way that is balanced and free of bias. Our mission is well-captured in our credo and editorial platform which includes the statement: “Good citizens may honestly differ on important public questions. We believe that all sides of the issues of our times should be fairly discussed—with deep respect for facts and logical thinking—in classroom magazines, books and other educational materials used in schools and homes.”
We also strongly believe that students should discuss the important issues of the day in classrooms so that they may gain the critical thinking skills which will help them become participating citizens and voters.
In that context, because the ABC docudrama The Path to 9/11 will be watched by many people in the U.S., including some of your students, we believe we should provide you with teaching ideas and background information on this series which will provide a “teachable moment” for an important issue of our time.
This program is highly controversial because:
As a docudrama, it contains imagined scenes that some of the political figures who lived through the period say are misleading and inaccurate.
It is an emotional portrayal of a period leading up to one of the searing events of our time—one which I personally witnessed first-hand from our Scholastic offices (less than a mile from the World Trade Center site). Several of our employees’ family members died in the attack.
It is being broadcast in a period just before the 2006 elections. A major election issue is the relationship between terrorism, the war in Iraq, and other conflicts in the Middle East and Afghanistan. As such, The Path to 9/11 is viewed by some as political and partisan.
The events leading up to 9/11 are important issues of our time. The docudrama, which covers the background of the period 1993-2001, is said to be largely based on the 9/11 Commission Report, and former Governor Tom Kean, Chair of the 9/11 Commission, is an advisor to the series.
We posted a discussion guide on Wednesday, August 23, which we believe was not in keeping with our high standards—and we took down that guide on Wednesday, September 6. We have rewritten this guide to focus more sharply on the issues of the docudrama as well as the background events.
The guide helps teachers to discuss these important questions:
What are the matters of dispute in the docudrama? What are the scenes that were altered or did not happen? How do these scenes affect your understanding? Are the changes part of an effort by the producers to shape your beliefs about these events? In your view, is this an appropriate way to treat an event such as this?
What are the different views of the relationship between the attacks of 9/11, the Iraq War, the war in Afghanistan, and the unrest in the Middle East? Many people believe that there is no connection between Iraq and the events of 9/11. Others believe that the broadly defined “War on Terror” justified the invasion of Iraq. As you study the background of events leading up to and following 9/11, what do you think?
There is a long history of conflict in the Middle East. How well do you understand each of the countries involved and what influences their behavior?
We believe that the rewritten discussion guide presented herewith will help your students interpret the ABC docudrama, The Path to 9/11, and hope that you will find it helpful in understanding the relationship between facts and drama, and the background of the different views about 9/11 in the U.S. and around the world.
Richard RobinsonChairman, President and CEOScholastic
http://www.scholastic.com/medialiteracy /
******************
John Kerry BLASTS ABC’s Desperate Docudrama !!!
Instead of the fiction written to excuse the invasion of Iraq by exploiting the 3,000 mothers and fathers, sons and daughters who were lost that day — they were attacked and killed not by Saddam Hussein but by Osama bin Laden – we need the truth.
Here’s a little truth: The President pretends Iraq is the central front on the war on terror. It is not now, and never has been. His disastrous decisions have made Iraq a fuel depot for terror – fanning the flames of conflict around the world.
The terrorists are not on the run. Worldwide, terrorist acts are at an all-time high, more than tripling between 2004 and 2005. Al Qaeda has spawned a vast and decentralized network operating in 65 countries, most of them joining since 9/11. The Taliban now controls entire portions of southern Afghanistan, and just across the border Pakistan is just one coup away from becoming a radical jihadist state with nuclear weapons. The Middle East is more unstable than it has been in decades. Hezbollah flags fly from rooftops in Shiia slums of Sadr City and Iran is rebuilding Southern Lebanon. We have an Iraqi Prime Minister sustained in power by our forces, who will not speak against the Hezbollah terrorists, who will not say that Israel has a right to exist, and who will not condemn the Iranian nuclear program, who will not even as a national leader support the national army over the Shiite militia. In other words, the Iraq government that the administration cites as the front-line force in the fight against terrorism won’t even take our side when we are fighting terrorists. No American soldier should be asked to stand up for an Iraqi government that won’t stand up for the values and interests that draw them into battle every day. Oh, and the 9/11 commission recently gave our government a failing grade on implementing intelligence reforms.
I love watching movies, but with the world looking the way it is right now I think this is a good time to stick with just the facts. After Iraq, we’ve all had enough fiction to last a lifetime.
Senator John Kerry
********ENDS*********