the founder and former editor of Truthout, from which I've sent you
many good opinion and news articles. Log on, give it a try, help it
grow. -Ed
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion/33-peace/1481-marc-ash-make-me-a-witness
Make Me a Witness
By Marc Ash, Reader Supported News
12 April 2010
Reader Supported News | Perspective
All morning October 2002 phone rings, I answer, woman's voice begins in
earnest: "Hello is this Truthout?" "Yes," I reply, "this is Truthout."
Woman's voice: "Paul Wellstone has been killed in a plane crash... are you
there... did you hear what I said?" "Yes," I replied finally, "I heard you."
Woman's voice: "His small plane crashed this morning. His wife and daughter
were killed with him. His plane crashed the same way Mel Carnahan's did...
it was the same thing... do you understand? You must say it was the same
thing." "Yes," I replied, "I understand." I don't remember her saying
anything else, I don't remember her hanging up.
It was the same thing.
People talk from time to time about the Bush years and what they meant. They
meant the death of American integrity.
It was a pivotal turning point for all things that mattered. From law to
militarism, to civil and human rights; from things foreign and domestic, to
education and the environment. Ruthlessness triumphed over the good of
mankind from start to finish.
The process could not have had a more ominous start. The Supreme Court of
the United States of America interceded in the outcome of the 2000
presidential election. Voting without legal or historical precedent, along
partisan political lines, to insert corporate America's too-good-to-be-true
candidate come true, George W. Bush as commander in chief.
For a graphic understanding of what it all meant, watch the WikiLeaks video
of an American Apache helicopter crew gunning down people in the streets of
Baghdad. Listen to their voices, they'll tell you what time it is.
And it's on to Afghanistan, and let's win there.
100 Mai Lais, the destruction of Babylon, a trillion dollars of US taxpayer
money to the Iraq war, so far, and a trillion more handed to the Wall Street
bankers as they foreclose on American home after home.
We do torture. We have always tortured. The difference is that now we
rationalize it, discuss it in mainstream print, radio and television
broadcasts. We live with it, we turn a blind eye to it, and because we
cannot face it down we are endlessly tortured by it.
The issue is justice, in all things. The willingness to do the right thing,
and the wisdom to understand that it is not harder or more costly, but
easier, more natural and more fulfilling to be fair than it is to deny
fairness. These are things we knew, really things we know now, but choose to
forget.
Which is the better national security strategy, peace through strength or
strength through peace? Choose one, you can't have both. Ever heard the
adage, "The cold war was a race between the US and the Soviet Union to see
who would go bankrupt first"? But that was when the Soviet Army was bogged
down in Afghanistan. Now the American military is.
Get a job. Can't get a job working for a corporation anymore? Get a job
fighting a war for corporations at one-third the pay. Main street look like
a ghost town? Might be a perfect time to go independent.
Make me a witness. Make you a witness too.
------------
Thanks to Sarah McLachlan for the title.
Make me a witness
take me out
out of darkness
out of doubt
***
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100426/mitchell?rel=emailNation
The Nuclear Narrative
Comment
By Greg Mitchell
The Nation.com: April 12, 2010
More than sixty-four years after the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, the bomb is still very much with us, as evidenced by this week's
great nuclear summit and new proposals to curtail stockpiles presented by
President Obama. But the thousands of weapons in the hands of the current or
former superpowers, the United States and Russia, draw less controversy in
our country than the notion that Obama is either going too far or not far
enough in limiting but not banning our possible "first use" of the bomb in
any conflict (or in any response to a perceived threat). Opposition to a
no-first-use policy, in fact, has been a cornerstone of US nuclear policy
for decades.
Yet despite some positive signs from Obama, I fear that moving very far in
the direction of no-first-use is still a long way off in America. Perhaps
the strongest reason is this: most Americans, our media and our leaders
(including every president), have endorsed our "first-use" of the bomb
against Japan. This remains true today, despite new evidence and analysis
that have emerged for so many years. I've been writing about this for almost
thirty years, with little shift in the polls or change in heart among our
policymakers and elected officials.
There has also been little change abroad--where the use of the bomb in 1945
has been roundly condemned from the beginning. Indeed, US support, even
pride, in our use of the weapon has given us little moral standing in
arguing that other countries should not develop nuclear weapons and consider
using them, possibly as a first, not a last, resort (that's our policy,
remember).
So it all goes back to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
While I respect the views of a range of historians on this matter, and the
opinions of the men who fought in the Pacific, I happen to believe the bombs
should not have been used against Japan, directly over cities, at that time.
The war would likely have ended very shortly without it (or a bloody
American invasion), largely because of the Soviets finally declaring war on
Japan--an event long-dreaded by Japanese leaders. Yes, there was a day when
conservatives like John Foster Dulles, columnist David Lawrence, Admiral
William Leahy and General Dwight D. Eisenhower clearly condemned the use of
the bombs.
But the key point for today is this: how the "Hiroshima narrative" has been
handed down to generations of Americans--and overwhelmingly endorsed by
officials and the media, even if many historians disagree--matters greatly.
Over and over top policymakers and commentators say, "We must never use
nuclear weapons," yet they endorse the two times the weapons have been used
against cities in a first strike. To make any exceptions, even in the past,
means exceptions can be made in the future. Indeed, we have already made two
exceptions, with over 200,000 civilians killed. The line against using
nuclear weapons has been drawn... in the sand.
And, as I noted, the fact that the United States first developed, and then
used--twice--the WMD to end all WMDs has severely compromised our arguments
against others building the weapon ever since. Hiroshima was our original
sin, and we are still paying for it, even if most Americans do not recognize
this.
That is why I always urge everyone to study the history surrounding the
decision to use the bomb and how the full story was covered up for decades.
There is certainly, in the minds of the media and the American public, no
taboo on using nuclear weapons, and it all started, but did not end, with
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is what nuclear abolitionists--or even those
who (like Obama) simply want a partial easing of our first-use policy--are
up against.
No comments:
Post a Comment