NEWS FROM "THE HUFFINGTON POST" BLOG
http://www.huffingtonpost.com

London: Bush's Flypaper Theory is Blown to Pieces
Posted July 7, 2005
Well, there goes that theory... Odds are we probably won't be hearing for a while the Bush mantra that the reason we're fighting them over in Iraq is so we don't have to fight them here at home. For the last few months, this ludicrous shibboleth has been the president's go-to line -- his latest rationale for slogging on in Iraq. Here he was on July 4th: "We're taking the fight to the terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them here at home." And during his primetime speech to the nation on June 28th, there he was again, this time quoting the commander on the ground in Iraq: "We either deal with terrorism and this extremism abroad, or we deal with it when it comes to us." The attacks in London proved how absurd this either/or logic is when fighting this kind of hydra-headed enemy.

Not only was this flypaper theory empirically disproved by the London carnage, it directly contradicts the president's other most often used justification for the war -- that we invaded to liberate the Iraqi people. So let me get this straight: we invaded them to liberate them... and to use them as bait to attract terrorists who we could fight on the streets of Baghdad rather than the streets of London and New York? Of course, it didn't take the London bombings to reveal this premise as a sham. The presence of American forces in Iraq didn't keep the enemies of western culture from attacking Madrid. And it didn't keep them from planting explosives in London's tubes. And it won't, in and of itself, keep them from striking here.

Indeed, it's helping terrorists recruit new followers -- and hone their deadly skills. How pathetic is it to keep arguing that fighting Baathist Sunni insurgents in Iraq is keeping us safe from Al Qaeda terrorists and their offshoots on our soil? It's still not clear who was responsible for the London bombings, but let's assume for a moment that the initial reports turn out to be true, and that it was an offshoot of Al Qaeda. No one can seriously argue that if the U.S. and Britain had spent the last 46 months -- and over $200 billion -- focusing on Al Qaeda rather than Iraq these attacks would not have happened. But we can say without a doubt that spending that time and money in Iraq did not prevent them. If Iraq is like flypaper, it unfortunately looks like we're the ones who are stuck there. Any predictions of what Bush's rewrite boys will come up with next?

Approve the Bush Agenda... or the Terrorists Win!
Posted July 8, 2005
Don't you love the way many in the media are trying to spin the London bombings? Instead of focusing on the bloody deconstruction of Bush's "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" strategy, they are using it to promote Bush's failing agenda. For an outrageous example, check out today's Wall Street Journal , where Dan Henninger tries to make the case that what happened in London proves the need for keeping our troops in Iraq, keeping the Patriot Act intact, keeping Guantanamo open, and -- I kid you not -- confirming John Bolton (supposedly because of his expertise in dealing with nuclear proliferation). Here's Henninger's money quote: "If the U.S. Senate wanted to send a signal of resolve and seriousness to whoever bombed London, Democrats would join with Republicans their first day back to dispatch proven anti-terror warrior John Bolton straight to the U.N."

It's a 2005 spin on that popular 2001 fill-in-the-blanks game "If You Don't [insert pet issue here] the Terrorists Win." Now instead of "get back to normal," "go shopping," and "travel to Disney World," it's "If you don't confirm John Bolton, the terrorists win!" Shameless. Then there was Stuart Varney on Fox, making the case that what happened in London "puts the number one issue right back on the front burner right at the point where all these world leaders are meeting. It takes global warming off the front burner. It takes African aid off the front burner." So, Stuart, when exactly did global warming become a front-burner issue and the war on terror a back-burner one? Was it after the vice president spent the entire campaign trying to convince voters that another terrorist attack in America was imminent? How convenient for the president's apologists to use the attacks to absolve him of his responsibility to deal with thorny issues he doesn't really want to. "Global warming? Africa? Sorry, boys, no time for them, the war on terror's back on the front burner!"

Wait a minute, if we let terrorists set the international agenda doesn't that mean, you know, that they win? The London bombings will not make global warming go away. The London bombings will not make the crises in Africa go away. They also won't make it okay for Bush to appoint right-wing extremists to the Supreme Court or make his plan to privatize Social Security acceptable or make John Bolton a good choice for the UN. And they sure as hell don't make Bush's lack of a plan for Iraq any less of a disaster for America. Indeed, it's precisely because the war on terror is -- and was, even before the London bombings -- the number one issue that we have to have an exit strategy for Iraq. If Bush and his backers in the media are really serious about the war on terror, they need to admit that we can no longer afford all the resources -- human and monetary -- being devoted to Iraq. Because if we don't keep the real war on terror on the front burner, and go after al-Qaeda, and capture bin Laden, and secure our ports, railways, airports, and roadways, to say nothing of the world's loose nukes... then the terrorists really will have a shot at winning.

Online vs. Print: A Front Page Pic Tells the Whole Story
Posted July 7, 2005
Obviously, the big news today is all about London. And, sure enough, when I picked up this morning's New York Times there was a headline about London. Except that the above-the-fold, front-page story was about London landing the 2012 Olympics, and came complete with a big color picture of jubilant Londoners... an image that had ben completely surpassed by the much bigger news out of London today. If one needed more proof of the ascendancy of online news, this morning put the Internet vs. print battle into stark relief -- and foretold the Net's inevitable victory. Over 30 percent of Americans between the ages of 30-49 already say the Internet is their main source of news, and nearly a quarter of people in their 20s and 50s get news online every day.

News happens every second of the day -- it doesn't stop after the next day's newspaper is put to bed -- and blogs and Internet news sites are clearly better equipped to keep up with this never-ending news cycle. So as this tragic story continues to unfold, I know exactly where I'll be getting my up-to-the-second news from -- and it won't be from the old-before-it's-new paper sitting on my doorstep tomorrow morning. Is there any doubt that more and more millions will be doing the same?

© 2005 TheHuffingtonPost.com, LLC

NYC "NOT IN OUR NAME" RESISTANCE CINEMA PRESENTS:
"THE CORPORATION" (2 hrs. 25 min., 2004)
Directors: Jennifer Abbott and Mark Achbar
WHERE: The Community Church of NYC, 40 East 35th Street @>Park Avenue in The Assembly Hall
WHEN: Wednesday, July 13th, 6 pm reception with modest refreshments, 6:30 film begins
ADMISSION: Donations greatly appreciated

This exceptional film, the winner of 24 international awards, can already be considered a modern classic in the genre of social/political documentaries. Its critique charts the spectacular rise of corporations as a dramatic, pervasive presence in our lives chronicling their origins as well as their inner workings, controversial impacts and possible futures. It is as exhaustive and thorough as any scholarly work and yet manages to be lively and entertaining throughout its nearly 2 1/2 hours. The film weaves its analysis through many interviews with CEOs and top level executives in many different industries and commentary from a host of thinkers, activists, journalists, historians and economists. The filmakers use the controversial 19th century decision giving corporations "legal personhood ' in a very clever analogy, comparing corporate behavior to what would be considered a "pathological personality" were a real living person to behave this way. It is dark humour, but also a very original insight and has greatly contributed to the notoriety of the film. What no reasonable person can deny is that the information contained in "The Corporation" is indispensable to understanding the modern world. All the other issues we face, from globalization, environmentalism, social justice, to war and peace, have, in one way or another, to confront the issues raised in this film eventually. Jeanine Garafolo may have said it best when she said "seeing The Corporation is like taking a college course".

RESISTANCE CINEMA is a collaboration between NYC Not In Our Name and Action For Justice of The Community Church of NYC.