Saturday, September 11, 2004

Regime Change: Then and Now

Below is an op-ed I submitted to a few mainstream newspapers. Of course, it was rejected by all of them.
----------

Regime Change: Then and Now
The Other September 11

In spite of the recent flurry of “war on terror” hyperbole at the Republican
National Convention, not much about wartime spin has changed since September 11, 2001. Beneath the posturing and pontificating, it remains true that U.S. wars and interventions are skillfully packaged and sold to a wary populace and the official history of those conflicts is subject to slant and
distortion. These realities exist in order to portray our leaders as
honorable, garner support for those leaders, and lay the foundation for
future military actions.

One aspect of this spin that has undergone an adaptation of sorts is the
comfort with which those in power can openly discuss such interventions.
This shift is particularly obvious when examining the “other September 11.”

To read the complete article, click on “more” below” or visit:
http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/mickey09122004/

Thanks to information made available in documents declassified in 1999, we
can usefully and coherently discuss the September 11, 1973 coup in Chile--an
event cloaked in secrecy and obscured by Cold War paranoia. But those
roughly 5000 documents don’t begin to explain how the toppling of Salvador
Allende fits within the context of today’s foreign entanglements. After all,
what the U.S. did by replacing Allende with General Augusto Pinochet 31
years ago would today be termed a “regime change” (As Henry Kissinger
explained at the time: “I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a
country go communist because of the irresponsibility of its own people”).

Ten days after the Allende government was overthrown, Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State Jack Kubisch told the House Subcommittee on
Inter-American Affairs: “Gentlemen, I wish to state as flatly and as
categorically as I possibly can that we did not have advance knowledge of
the coup.” The documents declassified in 1999, of course, told a vastly
different story which makes me wonder what might happen if Allende were
elected in 2004? Would George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld follow the same
clandestine path Kissinger and Richard Nixon opted for in 1973 or would the
U.S. government be tad more forthcoming about their plans?

Based on their public posturing and subsequent actions vis-à-vis Iraq, one
might safely assume that the Bush administration (or for that matter, a
Clinton, Gore, or Kerry administration) would declare Chile a clear and
present danger, impose brutal sanctions, and then pronounce the need for
regime change in the name of freedom and democracy. Next would come the
brazen threats to “shock and awe” Santiago with 3000 cruise missiles in the
first two or three days of the “liberation”. With or without the approval of
the United Nations, Operation Chill Pill would commence.

The Chilean people would be told, candidly, that America (and its Orwellian
“Coalition of the Willing”) was acting in their best interests. Meanwhile,
every man, woman, and child paying attention would be aware of the U.S.
intention to occupy Chile as de facto ruler while government contracts for
the rebuilding of infrastructure destroyed by coalition bombs and missiles
would set American-based construction firms into furious competition and
nefarious backroom negotiations.

In other words, there would be little or no need for the curious to wait 25
years for documents to be declassified. Today’s architects of war—from both
parties—would merely rely on the seductive power of spin to paint Allende as
the “next Stalin,” Pinochet would hire a PR firm, CNN would design a nifty
“Showdown with Salvador” logo, and reading books by Isabel Allende in the
airport would be reason for a bag search.

As sentiments sizzle, you never know: a new moniker might even be needed for
The Red Hot Chili Peppers and cartoon character Chilly Willy would become
“Free Willy” and enjoy a unexpected career resurgence.

Rightfully, there is much hand wringing today when looking back at U.S.
involvement in the 1973 coup in Chile. In 31 years, will others be equally
persistent in attempting to comprehend how this generation tolerated—and
perhaps offered tacit support for—a culture that made the Freedom of
Information Act superfluous?

Share
Posted on 09/11 at 10:36 PM
(0) Comments • Permalink

Friday, September 10, 2004

9/11...plus 3

I originally wrote this on September 11, 2001:

As I sit typing this here in New York City, the radio is blaring news of hijacked planes crashing into the World Trade Center. Instantly, I feared for friends who work in the area (note: it turned out a few died). Next, overwhelmed by the inevitability I felt and the sound of F-16s circling in restricted air space, I made a mental laundry list of suspects. Most observers, of course, will reflexively start with the generic term: “Arab.” It’s enlightening that Westerners use that word to describe people as diverse as Yemenis and Syrians, but rarely use “European” to label both an Irishman and a Swede. While it’s clear that only a few groups had the resources to pull off such a coordinated onslaught, I still couldn’t help but wonder who hasn’t the U.S. pissed off enough to warrant violent revenge?

To read the complete article, please click here:
http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/mickeyz09092004/

Share
Posted on 09/10 at 09:28 PM
(1) Comments • Permalink

John Kerry = Shit on a Snowboard

Snowboarding Magazine recently asked its readers whether or not John Kerry’s snowboarding influences their opinion of him. Almost all the answers were hysterical...and appropriately cynical.

My favorite was zen-like reply from a reader named John Gramata.

He mused:

“I could put a piece of shit on a snowboard and send it down a mountain and it doesn’t make it any cooler—it’s still just shit.”



Share
Posted on 09/10 at 05:31 AM
(4) Comments • Permalink
Page 605 of 640 pages « First  <  603 604 605 606 607 >  Last »