Our national political leaders have framed the debate over our choices vis-a-vis Iraq and our "war on terror" with a false and misleading dichotomy: "Stay the course, and Fight?" (protect our country, like the brave and loyal patriots we are) or "Cut and Run?" (and turn everything over to the terrorists, as those cowardly radical Democrats now urge us to do).

This is a loaded, manipulative, self-serving, disingenuous framing of the debate, so worthy of the best of America's current conservative Republican political leadership. Besides trying to stack the deck so as to undercut any serious national discussion of this vital national issue, the two choices they present omit our most important choice of all, the very one we really should be focusing on. read more »

News is now out that President Bush and his administration have begun seriously planning war against Iran, using nuclear weapons!

Plans are being developed to hit over 400 targets in Iran, including 13 airfields, and using nuclear bunker busters needed to get at underground facilities.

And there's no serious talk about diplomacy.

Re "diplomacy," keep in mind that when the Bush administration uses this term, what they actually understand by that term involves bullying, warning, threatening, and demanding unconditional compliance to their terms and point of view. Virtually demanding upfront the unconditional submission of the other side. Of course, that will not work, and the Bush administration knows it won't work, so they know that "diplomacy" for them is only going to quickly lead to war anyway, so why bother? read more »

At a meeting on Monday, April 3, a dozen or so of us began discussing Peace Circles as a structured way for folks to focus upon a really important issue, and then to identify a way to solve it, and then begin coming up with creative action they themselves can undertake that will begin moving our country toward a solution to the very problem they began to focus on. I used the idea of Peace Education Action Commitments for Everyone, or P.E.A.C.E. Circles to signify five phases of the focusing-to-actions-for-everyone process. We had hardly begun our discussion when we had to end, and we promised to continue. read more »

I was suggesting earlier that if we want peace we should begin by confronting the issues raised by al Qaeda head on, beginning with starting to talk with them (rather than just trying to annihilate them).

I'd like to recommend an article on this idea in the Boston Globe, on Sept 14, 2005, by the associate director of the Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research at Harvard University. read more »

I submitted a question for Peter Bergen regarding our approach to bin Laden to the Charlie Rose show, and might as well repeat it here:

"Everyone in the US has jumped on the bandwagon to completely demonize Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Wars, including our war on terrorism, get started and exacerbated this way. But not resolved, as we've seen these last three years. Yet, we've learned so much about constructive approaches to conflict resolution, about win/win approaches to these conflicts, since WW1 and WW2, but it seems no one in any leadership role is giving even a thought to using such approaches, preferring instead our "war on terrorism." read more »

Charlie Rose will be interviewing Peter Bergen tonight (11 pm, ch 2; repeated Wed, noon, ch 16) on Osama bin Laden and our war on terrorism. You can submit questions for them to address at www.CharlieRose.com.

Peter Bergen, author of Holy War, once interviewed bin Laden. Bergen has also spoken out about how the Bush administration has misrepresented the concerns and motives of al Qaeda. They don't object to our freedom (as bin Laden has said), but to our policies in the Middle East. This would be a good opportunity to maybe have some input (via submitting questions)and to also update one's information about what our "war" is, and is not, about.

About Bergen: U.S. leaders would prefer to muddle bin Laden's motives for attacking the United States. Yet if they want to know why bin Laden has dedicated his life to killing Americans and their allies, they don't even need to ask him. He has written many manifestos and has done interviews with Western media. From these writings and interviews, one can conclude only that bin Laden's major grievance is with U.S. foreign policy. According to Peter Bergen, one of the few Western journalists to interview him, bin Laden rarely condemns permissive U.S. culture. Also, he rarely speaks of the evils of democracy as such. Instead, he is especially incensed by U.S. support for corrupt regimes in the Islamic world and the U.S. military presence in the Islamic lands of the Persian Gulf, a presence he would like to dislodge. A lesser issue is his opposition to U.S. support and aid for Israel. Recently, al-Qaeda also has attacked U.S. allies, but only to drive a wedge between them and the United States in order to stymie U.S. overseas intervention -- especially in Iraq.

Also:
in his book Holy War, Inc., "What [bin Laden] condemns the United States for is simple: its policies in the Middle East." Rather than acknowledge the realities of bin Laden's war on America, Bush attempted to create and perpetuate a war-on-freedom myth.

Mike O'Brien

President Bush's criticisms of his war critics make perhaps surprising sense, considered this way... (four paragraphs) read more »

There were some excellent editorials and letters to the editor in today's July 8th Boston Globe on how President Bush's and Tony Blair's leadership in their "war on terror" has predictably now led to a horrible terrorist attack upon London:

See: read more »

This is essentially the same text as the previously posted fax to Senator Voinovich, but modified so it can be directed at other Senator's urging them to support Voinovich's opposition to Bolton's nomination. This one was sent to Senator Chafee. Feel free to use this, in whole or in part, should you agree with some or all of its sentiments.

Text follows: read more »

I just faxed a letter to Sen. Voinovitch supporting, and adding to, his objections to the nomination of John Bolton as our representative to the UN. I thought I'd post it here in case others might like to see the rationale advanced for opposing Bolton's nomination, and perhaps might like to modify or echo it in independent faxes to Voinovich or other Senators currently debating this issue.

Text of the Fax follows: read more »