Valerie Plame.jpg (24130 bytes)Outed CIA covert agent Valerie Plame remembers 9/11

Valerie Plame

Valerie Plame’s identity as a CIA covert agent was leaked to a conservative columnist after her husband, Joseph Wilson, debunked the George W. Bush administration’s claim that Iraq had acquired uranium yellowcake to use in a nuclear weapons program — one of the falsified justifications for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, was subsequently convicted of obstruction, perjury and lying to the FBI in an investigation into the leak. He was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and a fine of $250,000, but his prison sentence was commuted by President Bush.

On Sept. 11, I was in the CIA headquarters. I was a senior operations manager. I was working on something called the Iraqi Task Force, and our mission was to try to understand what was going on with the presumed WMD program of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. I was a covert operations officer until my true identity and affiliation was exposed in a column by a conservative writer in July 2003. When you are in that covert category, you cannot tell even your closest friends who you really are.

Just a couple months after 9/11, there had been a report circulating within the intelligence community about this alleged sale of yellowcake uranium from Niger to Iraq. If that were true, that would be really significant, because it would be indicative that Saddam was in fact seeking to reconstitute his nuclear program. As we were discussing this, a reports officer said, “Well, what about Joe Wilson?”—my husband. He suggested that Joe go investigate this report, for a couple of reasons: my husband had been the chargé d’affaires in the embassy in Baghdad during the first Gulf War. He’d negotiated the release of the hostages with Saddam. He had lived and worked in Africa as a diplomat for over two decades, and he had done a previous classified mission for the CIA.

So he did go to Niger, and when he came back, he was debriefed immediately by analysts, and he said, “I looked into this thoroughly. It’s totally bogus, and here’s why.” That report was disseminated throughout the intelligence community.

In fact, it matched two others — one from our ambassador and another from a four-star Army general.

Fast-forward to January 2003, and the President gives the State of the Union address. In it, he says the now infamous 16 words: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” I remembered, of course, thinking about my husband’s trip, but there are other countries in Africa that mine this yellowcake uranium, so maybe the President was referring to one of those. But it was strange.

Then Secretary of State Colin Powell gave his speech before the U.N. I personally was very interested to see what General Powell had to say, how he was going to make the case to go to Iraq, a pre-emptive war. And as I listened to him, I was experiencing cognitive dissonance, because what he was saying did not match the intelligence to which I had been privy. I was deeply disturbed. But of course, we went to war in March 2003.

During this time, there’s stories in the press about an unnamed retired U.S. ambassador who had gone to Niger, investigated these reports and come up with nothing. My husband was warned, finally, that this story was going to break open, and you’re going to be named, and if you want to do anything about it, you’re going to have to do it yourself. In July 2003 — July 6 — he wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times titled “What I Didn’t Find in Africa.” He went after the central rationale that the Administration gave for their war, which was an imminent nuclear threat. My husband wrote 1,500 words that said, I went on this mission and investigated this particular claim, and there is no validity to it. I believe that the intelligence has been manipulated. And clearly the Administration was feeling vulnerable because no WMD had been found and immediately went into oppositional mode. A week later, my name and true agency affiliation were exposed in a syndicated column. So I knew my career was over, my assets with whom I had worked were in jeopardy, and it was a completely different ball game. It was like falling down Alice’s rabbit hole.

The White House acknowledged that those 16 words did not rise to the level of inclusion in a presidential speech. But that wasn’t the end. For years my husband and I were subjected to a character-assassination campaign. Ultimately it led to the conviction on four out of five counts for Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, Scooter Libby. For my husband and myself, the most important count was obstruction of justice. We’re grateful, ultimately, that the truth has come out. Almost everyone now will say, Yes, the intelligence was manipulated, and the American people were sold a war that maybe wasn’t in our best interest. I don’t think history will judge those decisions well, because we’re almost eight, nine years into two wars, and the amount of blood and treasure that has been spent by this country — not to mention the civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan — is incomparable. I’m afraid it is a legacy that will endure for generations.

It took a couple years to acclimate myself. But a couple of years ago we moved out to Santa Fe, N.M., and we really have worked hard to rebuild our lives professionally and personally. And I feel grateful, because I get to work on issues that I still care about deeply, namely counterproliferation — making sure the bad guys don’t get nuclear weapons — but in a much more obviously overt capacity. I’m an advocate for Global Zero. When I was working at the CIA, I was trying to stop or delay or impede the proliferation of nuclear weapons. I’ve evolved to the point now where I truly believe we need to have as an objective a nuclear-free world. President Obama declared in Prague [in 2009] that this is our No. 1 security concern.

I’ve had enough of politics. But it has been a pleasant surprise in a way, because Ido have more of a public voice, and I can advocate for things that I care about deeply.

This interview by Paul Moakley was published in the September 19, 2011, issue of TIME magazine devoted to “Beyond 9/11”. It was reprinted in PeaceMeal, Sept/October 2011.

 (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


Is justice revenge or peace?

David Potorti

Back in 2001, one of the first people who reached out to our newly forming 9/11 group, September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, was Yitzhak Frankenthal, an orthodox Jew whose 19-year-old son, Arik, had been murdered by Hamas while serving in the Israeli army in 1994. In response, Frankenthal had established The Parents Circle-Families Forum, a group of Israeli and Palestinian parents who lost loved ones as a result of the conflict and were calling for reconciliation and an end to the cycle of violence. Some months later we met with Frankenthal to swap notes about our respective organizations. One of the stated goals of our 9/11 families group was to "encourage a multilateral, collaborative effort to bring those responsible for the September 11, 2001, attacks to justice in accordance with the principles of international law." We believed that transparent public trials would validate our system of laws that had been so badly shaken by the events of that day.

But Frankenthal zeroed in on the word "justice." For some, he said, revenge was justice. Retribution was justice. Violence was justice. In fact, we already knew there were many outside the United States who viewed the 9/11 attacks as a kind of justice in return for American foreign policy, for our arrogance, our blindness to the pain and suffering our actions have caused to innocent civilians -- "collateral damage" -- around the world.

It is the pursuit of justice that drives many of those who hate us. To those on the receiving end of American policies, what would justice look like in response to Guantanamo, where men have been tortured, held without charge or trial, and now remain in a state of indefinite detention? What would justice look like to the ever-growing American military presence and ever-increasing civilian deaths in Afghanistan? To the continuing occupation of Iraq that has killed or made refugees of so many civilians? To escalating drone strikes in Pakistan that kill increasing numbers of civilians?

We know what justice looked like to Najibullah Zazi, who said he was motivated to plot an attack on New York City subways in response to civilian deaths in his home country of Afghanistan. We know what justice looked like to Fort Hood shooter Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who was motivated by American actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it's not only them.

When Obama was elected, many Americans imagined that justice would come in the form of a break from the policies of the Bush administration, that America would return to the rule of law and adhere to what Thomas Jefferson described in the Declaration of Independence as "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind." What Obama has given them is not only a continuation of Bush policies, but their codification into law. For those Americans, what does justice look like now?

As Frankenthal bravely said of the murder of his son, and as many of us who suffered losses on 9/11 believe, "My revenge is peace."

David Potorti is one of the founding members of September 11 Families For a Peaceful Tomorrow. David lost his brother in World Trade Center Tower One during the terrorist attacks of 9/11. His article is from In These Times, April 2010 and reprinted in PeaceMeal, May/June 2010.

 (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


chittister.jpg (3135 bytes) 9/11 Five years on

by Joan Chittister, OSB

We are five years away now from the incineration of the Twin Towers when, in one blow, 19 radical religious zealots with a memory for the Crusades and a hatred for the United States turned the world upside down. Or we did. It’s very hard to tell five years later who really did more of the upending.

In the midst of national grief and anger, all that apparently mattered to us was whom to strike in retaliation. Anybody would do, it seemed. And so we did.

The world needn’t have changed the day the Towers went down. It certainly changed, however, on the day when, without proof of Iraq’s involvement, without undeniable certainty, without the approval of most of the world, the United States roared over Iraq on bombing raids and rolled into Baghdad to tear down the statue of Saddam Hussein.

On that day — not long after the whole world had grieved with us over the merciless loss of almost 3,000 innocent U.S. lives — the world divided in its loyalties, with most of them against us.

Now the United States, once the most open country in the world, has become a country under siege. Now we make old widows and little children take off their shoes in our airports to make sure they are not carrying explosives designed to harm us again. Now we have been at war longer with the ghosts of those 19 men than we were with Nazi Germany in World War II. Now we have become invaders, torturers, and paranoid partners in global destabilization.

The people who were supposed to “meet us with flowers singing in the streets” have left us with more than 18,000 wounded, 10,000 of them permanently disabled, and more than 2,700 dead.

Now we, too, pick up people in grand random sweeps, call them terrorists, hold them without charge, detain them without lawyers, cage them like animals, and fight with one another over whether or not we are a “Christian” country. Flush with weapons, we are now too poor to afford education grants or social security or universal medical insurance.

We have changed the globe, divided it into armed and arming camps. We have accelerated a new kind of arms race, with smaller countries of the world now intent on getting nuclear weapons themselves. After all, aren’t we the ones who made the concept of “Mutually Assured Destruction” the ultimate defense strategy?

We have changed the Constitution — or ignored it — to allow domestic spying. We have changed the country, stripped it of its liberties, and enlarged the powers of the administration to such an extent that we face the prospect of being governed more by the king of a republic than by the president of a democracy. But worst of all, perhaps, we have given up “America the Beautiful” — whom much of the world revered, or at least respected — for America the Brutal, whom the world now mistrusts. Now we have really given the radicals something to fight us about.

The anniversary of 9/11 is, indeed, a sad day for peacemakers, not unlike the day after the crucifixion when the creative work of a lifetime seemed lost. At the same time, it may be one of the most glorious moments in the history of peacemaking because there is in it the resurrection of an idea: There is no glory in war. Furthermore, there is no victory in it either. There is only the silence of the innocent dead in a cause without cause.

The Twin Towers are not the only thing that went down five years ago. What also went down is the soul of a country that once put principle over power. Is such a country Christian? Only if it, too, rises from the values that have died in it.

Joan Chittister, OSB, is executive director of Benetvision and the author of many books, including “There Is a Season” (2006, Orbis). Her commentary is edited from Sojourners Magazine, Sept/October 2006, for which she is a contributing editor, and reprinted in PeaceMeal, Sept/October 2006.

 (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


The Plain Truth

The following editorial was published by The New York Times on June 17, 2004.

It's hard to imagine how the commission investigating the 2001 terrorist attacks could have put it more clearly: there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, between Saddam Hussein and September 11.

Now President Bush should apologize to the American people, who were led to believe something different.

Of all the ways Mr. Bush persuaded Americans to back the invasion of Iraq last year, the most plainly dishonest was his effort to link his war of choice with the battle against terrorists worldwide. While it's possible that Mr. Bush and his top advisers really believed that there were chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq, they should have known all along that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. No serious intelligence analyst believed the connection existed; Richard Clarke, the former antiterrorism chief, wrote in his book that Mr. Bush had been told just that.

Nevertheless, the Bush administration convinced a substantial majority of Americans before the war that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to 9/11. And since the invasion, administration officials, especially Vice President Dick Cheney, have continued to declare such a connection. Last September, Mr. Bush had to grudgingly correct Mr. Cheney for going too far in spinning a Hussein-bin Laden conspiracy. But the claim has crept back into view as the president has made the war on terror a centerpiece of his re-election campaign.

On [June 14], Mr. Cheney said Mr. Hussein "had long-established ties with Al Qaeda." Mr. Bush later backed up Mr. Cheney, claiming that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a terrorist who may be operating in Baghdad, is "the best evidence" of a Qaeda link. This was particularly astonishing because the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, told the Senate earlier this year that Mr. Zarqawi did not work with the Hussein regime.

The staff report issued by the 9/11 panel says that Sudan's government, which sheltered Osama bin Laden in the early 1990's, tried to hook him up with Mr. Hussein, but that nothing came of it.

This is not just a matter of the president's diminishing credibility, although that's disturbing enough. The war on terror has actually suffered as the conflict in Iraq has diverted military and intelligence resources from places like Afghanistan, where there could really be Qaeda forces, including Mr. bin Laden.

Mr. Bush is right when he says he cannot be blamed for everything that happened on or before September 11, 2001. But he is responsible for the administration's actions since then. That includes, inexcusably, selling the false Iraq-Qaeda claim to Americans. There are two unpleasant alternatives: either Mr. Bush knew he was not telling the truth, or he has a capacity for politically motivated self-deception that is terrifying in the post-9/11 world.

– PeaceMeal July/August 2004

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


Film breaks records in military town

moore_time.jpg (4805 bytes)Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 broke all past records at the only theater to carry the film in Fayetteville, North Carolina — a military town. As many as 75 percent of moviegoers on opening weekend were soldiers or military families. Almost all the crowds at the theater applauded the film at the end, with some people giving standing ovations. Many had tears in their eyes as they left the theater.

Before going into the theater, Natalie Sorton, 25, the wife of an infantryman who served in Afghanistan and Iraq, described herself as a moderate Republican and said, "I want to see what my husband is fighting for. I think it’s going to open my eyes a little, and that worries me." After the showing, Sorton emerged with a grim face. She said she plans to buy the film on DVD and give it to everyone she knows. "I’m disgusted," she said. "Disgusted."

– edited from The Fayetteville Observer, June 29, 2004
PeaceMeal July/August 2004


Clarke’s 9/11 testimony raises furor

richard_clarke.gif (5213 bytes)When Richard A. Clarke, as the Bush administration’s chief anti-terrorism expert, tried early in 2001 to warn Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz of an imminent al Qaeda threat to the United States, Wolfowitz allegedly snapped back: "No, no, no. We don’t have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States."

On CBS’ 60 Minutes, March 21, Clarke said he replied, "Paul, there hasn’t been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in 8 years!" He then turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, "Isn’t that right?" The immediate answer was, "Yeah, that’s right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States."

In his new best-selling book, Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror, in media interviews, and in testimony before the bipartisan National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, Richard Clarke portrays the Bush White House as indifferent to the al Qaeda threat before September 11, 2001, and subsequently obsessed with punishing Iraq — regardless of the lack of evidence showing any connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon

Clarke told 60 Minutes he was surprised on 9/11 when administration officials turned immediately toward Iraq instead of al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Clarke said he was briefing President Bush, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and other top officials in the aftermath of the devastating attacks that killed almost 3,000 people. "Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq. ... We all said, ‘but no, no. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan,’" Clarke recounted, "and Rumsfeld said, ‘There aren’t any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.’"

Clarke’s book and testimony, accusing President Bush of ignoring Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist network before the attacks on 9/11, raised a furor. The White House responded by attacking Clarke as a disgruntled political opportunist hoping to sell his new book. A senior White House aide told NBC News on condition of anonymity that Bush personally ordered his aides to launch the counterattack against Clarke’s book.

Clarke fired back at the administration by reading President Bush’s response to his resignation letter last year. Noting it was in the president’s handwriting, Clarke read that he would "be missed. You served our nation with distinction and honor" and had "left a positive mark on our government." Clarke retired after 30 years of service in the upper rungs of the national security apparatus, working for four presidents going back to Ronald Reagan.

In testimony before the 9/11 commission on March 23, Secretary of State Colin Powell said the Sept. 11 plot was too far advanced by the time Bush took office in January 2001. "Those who were perpetrators of 9/11 ... already had their instructions. They had their plans in place," he said, adding that there was no indication that a military strike against al Qaeda’s base of operations in Afghanistan would have caused the 19 hijackers to abort their plans. Powell did acknowledge that top officials under-estimated the danger to the United States itself. "Most of us still thought that the principal threat was outside the country," he said.

In his sworn testimony the following day, Clarke said he voted Republican in 2000, but he went public with his charges because of his opposition to the war in Iraq. "The reason I am strident in my criticism of the president of the United States is because ... by invading Iraq, the president of the United States has greatly undermined the war on terrorism."

Panel Republicans tried to throw some punches Clarke’s way, reported Fred Kaplan, military analyst for slate.msn.com, but they didn’t land. James Thompson, former Illinois governor (1977-1991), holding up a copy of Clarke’s new book in one hand and a thick document in the other, bellowed, "We have your book and we have your press briefing of August 2002. Which is true?" He went on to observe that none of the book’s attacks on Bush can be found anywhere in the briefing.

Clarke calmly noted that, in August 2002, he was special assistant to President Bush. The White House asked him to give a "background briefing" to the press to minimize the political damage of a Time cover story on President Bush’s failure to take certain measures before 9/11. "I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done and to play down the negative aspects," Clarke said. He added, "When one is a special assistant to the president, one is asked to do that sort of thing. I’ve done it for several presidents."

Nervous laughter came from the crowd — or was it from the panel? The implication was clear: This is what I used to do and, though he didn’t mention them explicitly, this is what Condoleeza Rice and her deputy, Stephen Hadley, are doing now when they’re defending the president.

"You intended to mislead the press?" Thompson asked. "There’s a very fine line that anyone who’s been in the White House, in any administration, can tell you about," Clarke replied. Someone in his position had three choices: he could have resigned; he could have lied; or he could have "put the best face [I] can for the administration on the facts. That’s what I did."

Thompson asked in a bruised tone, is there one set of moral rules for special assistants to the White House and another set for everybody else? "It’s not a question of morality at all," Clarke replied. "It’s a question of politics." The crowd applauded fiercely.

Clarke previously gave classified testimony about the attacks before a private joint meeting of the House and Senate intelligence committees in 2002. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn) said March 26 in a speech from the Senate floor that "Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath." He called for Clarke’s 2002 testimony to be declassified for comparison. Clarke supported a sweeping declassification of documents, saying it would prove that the Bush administration neglected the threat of terrorism in the nine months leading up to the attacks.

Sen. Bob Graham (D-Florida), co-chairman of the joint House-Senate inquiry into intelligence failures before Sept. 11, said he had no objection to making Clarke’s 2002 testimony public. Graham said in a statement that if the testimony were to be declassified, it should be released in its entirety, "not, as the Bush administration has done in the past, selectively edited so that only portions favorable to the White House are made public."

Republican efforts to discredit Mr. Clarke have been undercut by the refusal of President Bush to allow his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to testify before the 9/11 commission on the pretext of separation of powers. Chairman Thomas Kean said, "[W]e do feel unanimously as a commission that she should testify in public." Appearing on 60 Minutes, March 28, Ms. Rice admitted that the day after 9/11, Bush asked Richard Clarke to find out whether Iraq was involved. Two days later, Bush reversed himself and agreed to allow Rice to testify in public and under oath before the commission on the condition that no other administration officials would be called. Bush said he and Vice President Dick Cheney also agreed to meet together with the full panel in private.

From the beginning, the Bush administration repeatedly fought creation of the independent commission to investigate 9/11. And since its formation, the White House has stonewalled two key requests by the commission — one for essential documents on the lead-up to 9-11, and the other for an extension of the May 27 deadline for completing its investigation. To mollify the panel’s Republican chairman, former New Jersey governor Thomas Kean, whom he appointed, President Bush reversed course and agreed to an insufficient extension that is supposed to ensure a final 9/11 report by July. However, a commission official told Newsweek that unless they get to see the key White House documents requested, their report "will not withstand the laugh test."

Reasons for the White House obstructionism are obvious in internal administration documents leaked to the Center for American Progress. The documents of the Department of Justice (DoJ) show that the Bush administration reversed the Clinton administration’s strong emphasis on counterterrorism and counterintelligence. Attorney General John Ashcroft not only moved aggressively to reduce DoJ’s anti-terrorism budget, but also reorganized DoJ’s mission to emphasize domestic violent crime and drug trafficking prevention. Out of 7 strategic goals described in an Ashcroft memo dated May 10, 2001, not one mentions counterterrorism. And the official FY2003 DoJ budget request from Ashcroft, dated September 10, 2001, shows that he was planning to ignore the FBI’s specific requests for more translators, counterintelligence agents, and researchers. All of this while the administration was receiving repeated warnings about potential terrorist attacks. After September 11, Ashcroft quickly amended his plans for DoJ’s reorganization.

– compiled from Alternet, Associated Press, Center for American Progress, Global Beat, MSNBC, Newsweek, New York Times, Reuters, and Slate, PeaceMeal March/April 2004

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


"War is not the answer"

Jim Stoffels, Co-founder and Chairman

Speech delivered at a rally for peace
October 14, 2001, Richland, Washington

We abhor the terrorist attacks of September 11, which snuffed out thousands of innocent lives and devastated many thousands of others. With the rest of America, we have grieved with and prayed for the victims of Black Tuesday, their families and friends, and the rescue workers.

While we grieve over those losses, we cannot support a policy of revenge and retaliation. The perpetrators of those criminal acts must be brought to justice before a competent tribunal such as the proposed International Criminal Court.

Vigilante action turning our special operations forces loose as judge, jury, and executioner is not the same as due process of law, contrary to our president's statement. Extrajudicial executions are the trademark of dictatorships and terrorists. Abandoning the rule of law enshrined in our Constitution and Bill of Rights is something we deplore.

Military action will never eliminate terrorism because it reacts only to symptoms and does not address the root causes. As our own administration told us before attacking Afghanistan, our retaliation will likely provoke further terrorist attacks against us with further loss of innocent lives. How will we respond to those?

Through our anger, we are being sucked into a cycle of endless violence such as has consumed Israel and Palestine for generations.

Our bombing campaign was publicly opposed by one Washington State congressman, Rep. Jim McDermott. For his courage, Rep. McDermott a Navy veteran of Vietnam was targeted by a well-known talk-radio host who incited his listeners to bombard the congressman's office with ugly telephone calls.

How sad to see Americans opposing freedom of speech for those they disagree with. Such is the kind of behavior that results from war hysteria and demagoguery.

War hysteria has also infected our Congress. Perhaps the most irrational action taken by Congress since September 11 is to increase the budget for ballistic missile defense to more than $8 billion a year. We have already spent some $100 billion on Star Wars and don't even have a Model T to show for it.

In contrast, what weapon did the terrorists use to bring down the twin towers in New York? Plastic box-cutters two dollars at any hardware store.

Who needs a missile to wreak havoc on the United States?

What are the root causes of this terrorism? Why is there such deep hatred of the United States?

Our foreign policies of the past half-century power politics and economic imperialism have earned us the dislike and hatred of many in the world, hatred that lashed back at us on September 11. While there are many instances that can be cited in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East I will limit discussion to three cases: Iraq, Iran, and Palestine.

Palestine: In our currying the favor of Israel since it was established in 1948, we have largely ignored the plight of the Palestinians. We blocked efforts in the UN Security Council to enforce Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in the 1967 war. Instead of condemning Israel's violations against the Palestinians living on the West Bank and Gaza strip, we have provided billions of dollars in weapons that Israel uses to oppress the Palestinians.

Iran: When our man in Iran fell in 1979, it was said there was no one left in Iran who had not lost someone to the Savak, the Shah's secret police. The Savak was set up and trained by our Central Intelligence Agency. The Shah came to power in 1953 after our CIA engineered a coup d'etat that brought down the popular representative government of Mohammed Mosaddeq. Mosaddeq's offense was that he nationalized Iran's oil.

Iraq: Oil was also at issue in the Persian Gulf War. That war was waged not only against the government of Iraq and its military, it was also waged against the people of Iraq. We intentionally destroyed the civilian infrastructure of the country with our bombing and then as declassified intelligence documents show laid siege with ten years of economic sanctions, knowing that would prevent recovery and cause epidemics of disease as well as starvation.

Osama bin Laden quoted United Nations' figures in the videotape aired last Sunday when he said that one million people have been killed in Iraq by our bombing and economic sanctions. More than half-a-million of those innocent victims were children.

I can think of no quicker way to arouse hatred than to kill people's children.

When faced with these appalling statistics on national television, our former Secretary of State did not deny the figures but declared that the deaths of a half-million Iraqi children are "worth it." The callous disregard for human life shown by that statement equals the callous disregard for human life shown in the deadly terrorist attacks of September 11.

"What goes around comes around."

The brutal truth is that we as a nation have exported and supported terrorism in many corners of the globe. Through covert action of our CIA, we have deposed democratically elected heads of governments, sometimes assassinated them, and installed dictators who oppressed, tortured, and murdered thousands of their own people. Before September 11, our actions never came back to touch our soil or people in a major way. Now all that has changed.

For years I have thought: If any other country did to us only a small percentage of what we do to them, we would all be screaming bloody murder. When it finally did happen, we immediately prepared to launch retaliatory military action - even as we gathered to pray to a God who says: "Vengeance is mine. I will repay." (Deuteronomy 32:35; Romans 12:19)

War is not the answer. The seeds of peace are not sown by armies and weapons. They are sown by harmonious relationships with other peoples around the world, by government policies that demonstrate we sincerely care for their personal welfare not just to exploit their resources and labor for our selfish "national interests."

Before more thousands die us and them I pray we will learn that our violence only perpetuates more violence. I also pray that this great evil thrust upon us will have an enduring effect in making us a more caring, compassionate, and generous people not only among ourselves but also toward the billions who live beyond our borders.

"America, America, God mend thine every flaw,
confirm thy soul in self-control, thy liberty in law."


"A Widow's Plea for Nonviolence"

by Amber Amundson

My husband, Craig Scott Amundson of the U.S. Army, lost his life in the line of duty at the Pentagon on September 11 as the world looked on in horror and disbelief.

Losing my 28-year-old husband and father of our two young children is a terrible and painful experience. His death is also part of an immense national loss and I am comforted by knowing so many share my grief.

But because I have lost Craig as part of this historic tragedy, my anguish is compounded exponentially by fear that his death will be used to justify new violence against other innocent victims.

I have heard angry rhetoric by some Americans, including many of our nation's leaders, who advise a heavy dose of revenge and punishment. To those leaders, I would like to make clear that my family and I take no comfort in your words of rage. If you choose to respond to this incomprehensible brutality by perpetuating violence against other innocent human beings, you may not do so in the name of justice for my husband. Your words and imminent acts of revenge only amplify our family's suffering, deny us the dignity of remembering our loved one in a way that would have made him proud, and mock his vision of America as a peacemaker in the world community.

Craig enlisted in the Army and was proud to serve his county. He was a patriotic American and a citizen of the world. Craig believed that by working from within the military system he could help to maintain the military focus on peacekeeping and strategic planning to prevent violence and war. For the last two years Craig drove to his job at the Pentagon with a "visualize world peace" bumper sticker on his car. This was not empty rhetoric or contradictory to him, but part of his dream. He believed his role in the Army could further the cause of peace throughout the world.

Craig would not have wanted a violent response to avenge his death. And I cannot see how good can come out of it. We cannot solve violence with violence. Mohandas Gandhi said, "An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind." We will no longer be able to see that we hold the light of liberty if we are blinded by vengeance, anger and fear. I ask our nation's leaders not to take the path that leads to more widespread hatreds that make my husband's death just one more in an unending spiral of killing.

I call on our national leaders to find the courage to respond to this incomprehensible tragedy by breaking the cycle of violence. I call on them to marshal this great nation's skills and resources to lead a worldwide dialogue on freedom from terror and hate.

I do not know how to begin making a better world. I do believe it must be done, and I believe it is our leaders' responsibility to find a way. I urge them to take up this challenge and respond to our nation's and my personal tragedy with a new beginning that gives us hope for a peaceful global community.

- The Chicago Tribune, September 25, 2001

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


Black Tuesday - September 11, 2001

My heart sank when my perplexity at how two airplanes could crash into the World Trade Center in New York was replaced by the reality that it was an intentional terrorist attack. What a horror unfolded before our very eyes!

As is so often the case when tragedy strikes, ordinary American citizens exhibited the finest qualities that make us a nation from the heroism of the firefighters and police officers on the front lines of the tragedy to the compassion of the many men and women who lined up around our beloved country to donate blood.

But I also see and I hesitate to say it I also see our own dark side in this horrendous tragedy, as expressed by the saying: The chickens are coming home to roost.

Is it sacrilegious to speak those words now when so many of our own innocent lives have just been snuffed out and devastated?

If not now, when? It is never easy to face our sins.

The brutal truth is that we as a nation have exported terrorism around the globe for decades, and done so with impunity. Consider ...

Iran: When our man in Iran fell in 1979, it was said there was no one left in Iran who had not lost someone to the Savak, the shah's secret police. The Savak was set up and trained by our CIA.

Latin America: The history of our involvement in Latin America runs with blood. Many of the most brutal dictators including Panama's Manuel Noriega and their officers were trained at our U.S. Army's School of Americas at Ft. Benning, Georgia. Manuals used at SOA taught methods of kidnaping, torture, and assassination which the military used against their own people (see articles on Latin America page).

Guatemala: The horrors of the 36-year civil war against the native people of Guatemala incited by our government in 1954 when it sent the CIA to overthrow the democratically elected president are well-documented in the book by Nobel Peace Prize winner Rigoberta Menchu Tum. Aided and abetted by our government with guns, money, and training, Guatemala's subsequent military dictators killed or "disappeared" some 200,000 people during the bloody conflict. Our CIA agents "ordered, planned, or participated in serious human rights violations such as assassination, extrajudicial execution, torture or kidnaping" according to a report by the presidential Intelligence Oversight Board.

Chile: Former dictator Augusto Pinochet, indicted by a court in Spain for crimes against humanity, was our man in Chile. Pinochet came to power in 1973 through a military coup actively supported by the covert action of our CIA, in which the democratically-elected President Salvador Allende was not only deposed but murdered. Thus began a period of brutal repression in which more thousands of people were tortured and murdered or "disappeared."

Our role of actively supporting brutal dictators in the oppression of their own people was repeated in Argentina, El Salvador, Haiti, Indonesia, Nicaragua, and the Philippines.

Palestine: In our currying the favor of Israel, we have largely ignored the plight of the Palestinians. Instead of condemning Israel's violations against the Palestinians living on the West Bank and Gaza area, we provide much of the military aid that enables their oppression.

Iraq: Our war in the Persian Gulf was not only against the government of Iraq and its military, it was also a war against the people. We intentionally destroyed the civilian infrastructure of Iraq with our bombing and then laid siege with ten years of economic sanctions to prevent recovery (see article on Iraq page). The direct effect, according to the United Nations, has been the deaths of a half million children due largely to starvation and intestinal disease from sewage-contaminated drinking water.

When faced with this appalling statistic on national television, our former Secretary of State declared that the deaths of a half-million Iraqi children are "worth it." The callous disregard for human life shown by that statement equals the callous disregard for human life shown in the deadly terrorist attacks of September 11.

How can I be "proud to be an American" when my government commits crimes against humanity that are without a conscience?

In the Bible we read: "A man reaps what he sows." (Galatians 6:7)

The terrorism we Americans have supported in various corners of the globe never before touched our soil or people in a major way. Now all that has changed. On September 11, the United States was turned into a virtual war zone.

The ease with which the catastrophe was executed and our total inability to defend ourselves reveal the utter folly of ballistic missile defense. Who needs a missile to wreak havoc on the United States?

For years I have thought: If any other country did to us only a small percentage of what we do to them, we would all be screaming bloody murder. Now that it has happened, we are already preparing to launch retaliatory military action even as we gather to pray to a God who says: "Vengeance is mine. I will repay." (Deuteronomy 32:35; Romans 12:19)

And so, we will charge into a never-ending cycle of violence and killing like the one that consumes Israel and Palestine.

"Peace through strength" is a fallacy of the militarists. The seeds of peace are not sown by armies and weapons. They are sown by harmonious relationships with other peoples around the world, by relationships that demonstrate we sincerely care for their personal welfare not just to exploit their resources and labor for our selfish "national interests."

Before many more die us and them I pray we will learn that our violence only perpetuates more violence. I also pray that this great evil thrust upon us will have an enduring effect in making us a more caring, compassionate, and generous people - not only among ourselves but also toward the billions who live beyond our borders.

- Jim Stoffels, Chairman and Editor
PeaceMeal, Sept/October 2001