september 2004

An Iraqi-American's Vote in 2004
Hawra Karama
hawrakarama@yahoo.com
July 30, 2004

I've never had the chance to vote for a president or any other national leader in my life. Having grown up in the Middle East, voting, like a laundry list of other apparent pillars of democracy, was something I knew existed almost everywhere but home. Coming from an area of the world where monarchies and dictatorships competed to make their constituents' lives miserable, what could possibly be more exciting than finally being able to flex one's citizenship muscles and to exercise a popular form of self-determination? Voting and the democracy it represents were on my list of reasons for migrating to the United States. Little did I realize when I pledged my allegiance to this country a couple of years ago that I would deliberately waive my fundamental right to vote for president in 2004. I do not say that in ingratitude of the efforts of the people of color and the women who made suffrage their lifelong struggle. I realize from my brief study of American history and from the number of years I have lived in this country how central voting is to the American definition of liberty; the very same liberty the defense of which was part of the reason we went to war in Iraq. Rather, I view the concept of "democracy" in the same way many of my fellow Iraqis do. Heavily cynical of most people's definition of democracy, I give up my right to vote with absolutely no regrets.

I'm told that our troops are in Iraq to defend America's freedom and to defeat freedom-haters. I can't help but wonder, how many Iraqis were plotting day and night, conspiring feverishly to take away your right to vote? What was the average Iraqi thinking when he stopped worrying about his child dying under sanctions, suspended his terror of Saddam's crushing tyranny, and ignored the diseases depleted uranium inflicted on him, all in order to take the time to hate Americans' right to vote? How many people in Fallujah despised American arrestees' right to Miranda warnings? How many more Iraqis stopped mourning their children lost to Iraq's many wars and mass graves just so they can ponder how much they detest the Statue of Liberty's architecture? The democracy we sought to defend, the one we insisted on teaching Iraqis, has claimed the lives of thousands of people. It has tortured prisoners, maimed civilians, raped women and belligerently termed the victims of genocide "collateral damage." When the maintenance of freedom depends on killing other people, it's no longer called freedom. When democracy sustains itself by feasting on people's blood, including that of its own citizens', it is defined as anything but democracy.

It is in solidarity with the victims of this "democracy", victims from Detroit to Baghdad, that I choose not to vote. That goes for voting in general. As for this November specifically, I may superficially appear to have every compelling reason to vote. After all, I am an Iraqi and my heart weeps along with those of the grieving widows and orphans in Baghdad, Basra, Najaf, Fallujah, Karbala, and Mosul. Don't I owe them the duty to vote out their American butcher (Bush) now that their Iraqi butcher (Saddam) is finally gone? Well, what electable alternatives do I have? None
other than the Democrats, naturally. We found the Republicans' going to war over non-existent weapons of mass destruction, sending our sons and daughters to a place that didn't greet them with roses, and embarrassing the United States in the world's public eye unforgivable. How, then, can we forgive the Democrats' deliberate starving of the Iraqi people by sanctions, killing 1.7 million of them (according to the United Nations), and bombing them periodically for the duration of both Clinton's terms? If we find the Republicans' acts so repugnant, how can we easily forget Madeline Albright's considering half a million Iraqi children's lives "worth it"? If George W. Bush's decision to drag the country into war was a crime, how can we excuse John Kerry's collaboration? He did vote for the war, didn't he? Of course, every once in a while, you'll hear someone argue that while Kerry's policy on Iraq is not substantially different from Bush's, we should nevertheless vote for him because at least Democrats improve the economy. The omitted sentence in that argument is ". improve the economy, and the Iraqis can go to hell".

I will not vote into office a Democrat who latches on to my people's suffering to advance his own power-lusting, partisan agenda. Someone told me that Iraqis celebrated Clinton's election after the 1991 Gulf War. They, like too many Americans today, fell for the "anyone but Bush" rhetoric. They will know better than to feel overjoyed by the presence of a Democrat in the White House this time.

America is still America, regardless of whether its president is a Republican or a Democrat. By the same token, an occupied country is still occupied, tying a man's genitals to electric wires is still torture, and ordering tanks to roam another country's streets is still imperialism, regardless of whether the president is a Republican or a Democrat. Democrats are every bit as culpable and un-repenting as Republicans and Baathists. I will feel no more justified by Kerry succeeding Bush than an Iraqi did when Paul Bremer succeeded Jay Garner.

Iraqis did participate in democracy a few months ago, and I'm not talking about the formation of Iraq's interim government. In April 2004, Fallujah was bombed and besieged. Over seven hundred people were killed. Hundreds from Baghdad walked 35 miles to donate their blood, their food and their love to their fellow occupied Iraqis in the abused city. Of course, US blockades surrounded Fallujah and stood in the Baghdadis' way. The Baghdadis peacefully broke through the blockades with their bare hands and inspired the world by their courageous humanitarian act. Similarly, in Benton Harbor, Michigan last year, an entire city rioted in protest to a white police officer's slaying
of an African-American motorcyclist. In Jenin and Gaza, battered Palestinians took to the streets to protest the their occupation and the occupation of their brothers and sisters in Iraq.

The chants of angry protesters from Baghdad, Benton Harbor and Palestine are manifestations of peoples' collective will. To my mind, that is the true definition of democracy. The democracy I choose to participate in does not take place for half an hour once every four years in a closed voting booth, where I find myself asking a politician to control my life and the lives of others. Instead, it unfolds when I join hands with people of all racial and religious backgrounds and I march with them, rain or shine, in solidarity with humanity and in defiance of artificial democracy and those who compete to lead it.

    TWO MUSLIMS ENTRAPPED IN ALBANY, NY., SUBJECTED TO HIGH-TECH LYNCHING
IN THE ZIONIST MEDIA
www.newtrendmag.org

August 5, 2004, all day there was a drum beat of TV propaganda against two Muslims arrested by the U.S. government in Albany, the capital of New York state. After spending hours, watching Fox News, MSNBC and CNN, New Trend has put together this report.

Mohammad Hossain, 49, is a Bangladeshi Muslim and the founder of a small mosque in downtown Albany. Yassin Aref, 34, is a Kurd from Iraq and the Imam of the mosque. Yassin speaks some English but Hoosain needs an interpreter. They are quite poor by American standards. Hoosain earns his living with a help of his pizza shop where his wife [who wears a face veil] works.

Both have little formal education and are easy victims of the American power structure.

Some time back, a government agent approached the two. He is a convicted felon who received a promise from the government that his sentence would be reduced if he could trap the Imam and the founder of the mosque and expose them as links to terrorism.

The convict pretends to be a Muslim. The Imam, used to the easy going Albany Muslim community, accepts the convict's claim that he is a Muslim. The agent becomes a frequent visitor. He tells the two Muslims that he could procure them a loan which would also help the Muslims overseas. The two understand very little of the talk which goes on [and is being video taped by the agent]. He tells them that he is buying a weapon [rpg perhaps] to help the "mujahideen." They don't understand what he is talking about. They think he is saying that he will give them a $5000 loan and also will use their help to send $45,000 to help Muslims overseas. They agree. They are very much
in need of funds.

The government arrests the two and proclaims that they were planning to send a weapon to the mujahideen and were involved in money laundering to help the convict buy the weapon. [HOSSAIN's HOUSE IS RAIDED at 1.30 AM, Yassin's at 2 AM. The wives of the two, pious, veiled women, vehemently deny their husband's involvement in any underhand activities. The Muslims of Albany support the two innocents but their protests are taken as "naïve" by the media]

The ZIONIST MEDIA THEN WENT INTO A FRENZY OF PROPAGANDA against the two naive and innocent Muslims. The GOVERNOR of New York, Pataki, ever watchful enemy of Muslims, came on TV to praise the great work which had been done by "law enforcement" in the "capture" of the two potential terrorists. The faces of the two "potential terrorists" were repeatedly shown on TV, thus ensuring that their survival in this society would be difficult. There was no attempt to consider the basis of law, which is presumption of innocence before proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Within hours, self-styled experts on terrorism had decided that the two Muslims were part of the international terror network and their arrest was a great victory in the "war on Terror."

FOX TV had an "expert" named Larsen who claimed that it was a blow not only at Al-Qaida but against ALL of ISLAMIC TERRORISM! All kinds of weird evidence was given to the media by the government. One claim was that the rocket was to be used to attack the Pakistani embassy in New York.

The Kurdish Imam had probably given his phone number to people in Iraq who were Islamic. This was found by the FBI, and within hours Yassin became a MEMBER OF ANSAR al-ISLAM and connected to AL-ZARQAWI!
----------------------------------------------
New Trend's comment: If this kind of action against two INNOCENT, HARMLESS and INSIGNIFICANT people is being presented as a victory against terrorism, surely this is an attempt at fooling the American people. The two innocents have been "lynched" on TV before even a remote chance of a trial. They face SEVENTY years in prison.

The Bush administration, faced with almost certain defeat in the coming elections, is carrying out these bizarre actions against people who cannot defend themselves. Kafka could not have written a
more surrealistic story than that which is being enacted by the FBI.

End of Chalabi

Howard Dean: Terror Alerts - Substance or Politics?
Aug 11, 2004, 08:41


Over the past week there has been a lot of controversy about whether President Bush is using the timing of terror alerts to bolster his re-election campaign. Terrorism is a very serious issue and I do not believe that the terror alerts are based solely on politics. However, I do have some concerns that the timing of this announcement seems to be based on an election strategy.

Let's look at the facts:

* Bush strategist Karl Rove told members of the Republican National Committee during a January 2002 speech that Republicans "can go to the country" on national security issues and invited his party to politicize the war in an election year. And according to The Associated Press, a White House strategy for the 2002 elections - formulated by top presidential advisors - advised Republican candidates to campaign with messages highlighting the war on terrorism.

* The Al Qaeda operative whose capture led to the release of information was captured on July 13, twenty days before President Bush's press conference. The bulk of the information received was over three years old, some was eight months old. Even if the computer discs were found a few days after the capture of the terrorist, that means that the administration either chose the timing of the release, presumably for political reasons, or they lacked the resources to process the information in a timely manner.

* The day after Ridge was accused of considering politics for the timing of the announcement, he suddenly claimed that it took them a long time to process and translate the information.

* The administration has denied that the Department of Homeland Security gets involved in politics. In fact, last year the Department of Homeland Security was reportedly used for political purposes when it attempted to track down the whereabouts of Texas lawmakers who left the state to foil a Republican attempt to gerrymander Texas congressional districts.

* And, the Department of Homeland Security played the political card again at the press conference on August 1. Ridge spent time informing Americans that the President was a great leader in the fight against terror. Ridge said, "We must understand that the kind of information available to us today is the result of the President's leadership in the war against terror."

* This is not the first or second time this administration has misled the public. For example, Weapons of Mass Destruction still have not been found in Iraq - even though President Bush convinced the American public and Congress that this was one of the primary reasons to support sending approximately 135,000 troops to Iraq.

* I am not the only person to believe that the timing of this announcement was somewhat based on politics. News organizations like the Associated Press, The Washington Post and The New York Times interviewed national security experts and political strategists, including a "top GOP operative" and "some senior Republicans" who have also questioned the timing of this announcement.

Terror is one of the most serious short term problems America faces and along with the soaring deficits and the continuing degradation of our environment, it is one of our most serious long term problems. All of us want the President to succeed in fighting this incredible threat. I am one American who would like to see more substance and less politics in this fight, so I can look forward to a future filled with hope, not fear.

Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont, is the founder of Democracy for America, a grassroots organization that supports socially progressive and fiscally responsible political candidates. Email Howard Dean at howarddean@democracyforamerica.com