Right-on analysis, Mr. Naureckas.
The following cannot be repeated often enough. In fact, it should be etched into marble and hung both in Congress and the Senate:
"Kellogg-Briand was the basis for the “crimes against peace” indictment at the Nuremberg Trials for Nazi leaders, several of whom were hanged for “planning, preparation, initiation, or waging a war of aggression.” At Nuremberg, chief US prosecutor Robert H. Jackson declared:
"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
After watching the short video presentation by scholar Phyllis Bennis on CD the other day ("The Only Appropriate Public Event For George Bush To Attend Is His Own War Crimes Tribunal") I was duly impressed with her condemnation of George Bush as A War Criminal- She did one stellar job of defining our Wars of aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq- Not sure if you watched it... Otherwise, I also agree that this was A "Right on analysis by Mr. Naureckas".
Does anyone afford the New York Times and the Washington Post any credibility in foreign affairs. They have become propaganda organs for our twisted foreign policy. In recent years, when has there been a divergence between the two papers and the government in foreign affairs. Name an invasion, these two papers are leading the cheering. Is it these papers or is it us? Are we leading them on?
I blacklisted reading/buying both of them years ago- They are both Political extensions of the coke vs. pepsi political parties with A big dash of CIA mixed in-