The Voice of G. Allen Reason

Anti-War disinformation

G. Allen Reason 08/10/07)

Appearing in the "Global Research.Ca" web page is an article written by Professor Michel Chossudovsky (We will call him "Professor C." for sake of space and pronunciation). Professor C. is the director of Global Research . CA. The title of his article is: "Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement"

Where Professor C. makes a critical mistake is that he has allowed a copy of the text of the executive order in question to be published in its entirety. Either Professor C. is a fool or he must think that the rest of us are.

The reason for this statement is simple. He made several statements which were totally erroneous and could not be backed up by any examination of the executive order in question. In addition to the title itself, here are three statements that are emotionally charged hog-wash. Paragraph 1 states: "...(the executive order) provides the President with the authority to confiscate the assets of whoever opposes the US lead war." Paragraph two states that (the executive order) "repeals with the stroke of a pen the right to dissent and to oppose the Pentagon’s military agenda in Iraq." Paragraph three says that the order: "...provides the President with the authority to confiscate the assets of ‘certain persons’ who oppose the US led war in Iraq:" and it states: "In substance, under this executive order, opposing the war becomes an illegal act."

We could go on but it would be a redundant use of the same disinformation. No where in the article does it say, nor allude to, the removal of the rights of protest. What it does say is illegal is for anyone who does the following and they can have all their assets blocked if they are determined:

It goes on to include persons who have supported, in any material way, the actions of those who are blocked.

The key is, the executive order does NOT outlaw descent. That is, unless that descent involves providing funds to Iran or to some organization that is involved in committing violent acts to hinder our efforts in Iraq. Taking part in hostile acts against the United States, in time of war, is, according to Article III, Section 3, of the US constitution.

Even through many of our congressmen and media writers are claiming that the US has lost the war in Iraq, an action which had extended the Vietnam war by nearly 7 years, they are free to do so. In Vietnam, (According to Gen Giap, commander of all North Vietnamese military during the war, in an interview after the war), after the North Vietnamese were soundly defeated in the TET offensive, they were ready to go to the bargaining table and admit defeat. When the US and world media, along with anti-war members of the government publically called the TET offensive a defeat for America and that we had to pull out, they decided to just hang on, feed the anti-war propaganda machine, and they would eventually get everything they wanted, without winning the war on the ground.

Today, anti-war, anti-America forces, like Professor C., are doing the same thing. They are, in plain English, lying to the American people and the world. Their purpose is simple, to insure that the US will lose the war in Iraq and therefore, the war on terror as a whole. Unlike Vietnam, the consequence will not be just a communist state in the far east. The consequence of losing the war on in Iraq will be a major encouragement to a group of radical Islamists who want only to destroy Israel and anyone who opposes their radical form of Islam. Like Hitler, they have stated their intentions. Like Europe in the 1930's, the people of Europe and the Americas have ignored the warning signs. Is history repeating itself again?