Amechi A. Okolo, PhD.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/16/98
Bill Clinton,
President of the United States
White House
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President,
A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF WHY IMPEACHMENT WILL BE GOOD FOR YOU, MR. PRESIDENT!
The first thing I want to state in this letter is that I am a very strong supporter of you and the First Lady. My wife and myself are very big fans of two of you which means that we are naturally not happy with the way things are going.
I know that I should have written this letter earlier but I kept hoping that the crisis would go away so that my advice might not be needed after all. However, after all the ups and downs, we are now at the crunch time. The Judiciary Committee has voted to impeach you and the full House will approve the articles this week (unless a miracle happens). So for all intents and purposes it is safe to assume that the President will be impeached this week. Meanwhile, everybody is acting or behaving as if impeachment is the worst thing that could ever happen to Clinton and/or whether it will be the end of the world for the President and the nation.
Mr. President, I most respectfully beg to disagree. Impeachment is not the most terrible thing that could happen to you in this crisis. In fact, given the current political equation, impeachment by the House is not only your most favored option but what you must insist on. You should give the Republicans only two options — to impeach you or leave you alone — and my bet is that they will drop the entire matter and leave you alone because they are the ones to lose if they go for impeachment.
I am writing this therefore to urge you not to accept any form of censure. Those who are urging you to accept censure as the alternative to impeachment have either not taken the time to make their own independent study, analysis and hence come to their own rational conclusions or that they are actually your real enemies whose ulterior motive is to goad you to your actual disaster. The truth however, is that your acceptance of any form of censure will mean ultimate disaster for you and a historical victory for the Republicans. Equally, the opposite, your impeachment by the House will ultimately lead to your glorious vindication and a permanent historical indictment and embarrassment of the Republicans. Mr. President, I make the above assertions with the highest sense of professional responsibility and I urge any scholar in the country to contradict my position with historical or theoretical evidence. Again, briefly, my position is this — that given the current political equation censure will mean a historical disaster for you and a resounding historical victory for the Republicans while the alternative of impeachment will lead to a resounding historical victory and vindication for you and a permanent shameful indictment and embarrassment for the Republicans. I am therefore urging you to read this letter very carefully, study and discuss it with your closest advisers before proceeding on your current strategy of pleading for censorship which I believe is seriously ill-informed.
My urgency in writing this letter therefore derives from my basic assumption that the President will be impeached this week. In fact, impeachment will be my preferred outcome this week. The various censor alternatives being proffered are more ominous and unacceptable to me. I am aware that censors are being proposed by the Democrats and some President’s friends in Washington, and that the President himself has even indicated his willingness to accept some form of censor, but censor is a bad idea and I firmly advise against it for reasons I will give.
The President’s friends are proposing censure because of political pressures where they must be seen to be supporting some kind of “punishment” for the President. The President himself also proposed to accept censure — I believe, because of political pressures — to show that he has really repented and ready to accept some form of punishment for his transgressions and not because he felt that he deserved it.
Briefly, I write this therefore for the following reasons:
1. To urge you not to accept censure (I will give more reasons later).
2. To plead with you never, never to resign, (as Hyde and others are now suggesting).
3. To let the constitutional process go its full route which will culminate in the Senate trial and your ultimate acquittal.
The President should not accept censure because it will be the worst option for him at this point given all the possible "“punishments" he might receive from impeachment. Actually if the Republicans think their options thoroughly and rationally they should be the ones calling for censure. They should then craft the worst forms of censure for you (Like the one Dole is now peddling around), which might include complete “voluntary” admission of legal wrong doings, unbearable financial fines and a binding pledge never to seek or accept Presidential pardon and/or run for any future political office.
And I am sure that given the current pressures surrounding you now that many people would urge you to accept the above censure terms including any other possible unthinkable punitive terms they might think of because their basic argument is that anything would be better for you than impeachment which is absolutely not true.
Well, Mr. President, I respectfully beg to disagree. I am a Professor, and I have been teaching American society and public policies for the past twenty years and there is nothing that I have seen or read since then to suggest to me that censure should be preferred by you. In fact all evidence suggest to the contrary.
By accepting censure, you are voluntarily accepting legal liability for whatever these guys might throw at you now and in the future. But more importantly, you will be providing the only authentic and indisputable evidence for history to judge and confirm that you were really wrong and that the Republicans were right. Please, I plead with you, do not give them that more evidence on a platter of gold. Let those ultra radical (i.e. conservative) Republicans work for their own historical exculpation without your further help. You have already helped them enough to get yourself into the mess that we are in today and I hate to see you lend them any further rope to hang you.
If you agree that you lied under oath as some are suggesting, it will not help your case. It will only complicate your case. It will tantamount to plea bargain. But the ultra conservative Republicans who push this impeachment process have only shown extreme predilection for your demise, and they will not rest until you are removed after which they will face Al Gore who will represent continuation of your policies which are the real issues in contention here.
I agree with the Republicans here that the real issue is neither Monica Lewinsky nor sex. They are all facades designed to mask the real Republican deep seated problems with Bill Clinton. I am certain that if they did not find Monica Lewinsky that they would have found something else because the main strategy is not only that Clinton has to be brought down but that he must be politically destroyed permanently. The most important question therefore is this — Why such venomous hatred against President Clinton? The answer is because Clinton represents the clearest and consistent repudiation of Reaganomics with its trickle down socio-economic policies. Clinton not only confirmed the voodism (which Bush recognized in his sane years) of trickle down anti-masses policies of Reagan era in the United States but also proceeded to bury Thatcherism and like policies in Britain and Europe. Tony Blair, Schroeder and the successes of like minds in Europe and other places are the enduring and indisputable testimonies to indomitable and insuperable spirit of the duo — Bill and Hilary. Initially, they were not sure who to destroy first. They vacillated between Hilary and Bill but when they found Hilary too tough to handle they zeroed in on Bill who fortunately opened the floodgate for them with the Monica Lewinsky.
It is no surprising that the 80’s were gloomy years of economic recession and untold increasing misery and poverty for the masses in the United States and world wide while fewer and fewer got richer and richer as designed by Reaganomics.
In contrast the Clinton years have witnessed increased economic boom and prosperity for an increasing percentage of the people than was imagined before. Simply put, Clinton has shown that the harsh and ruthless capitalism of Reaganomics was unnecessary and even sheer wickedness. Furthermore, some of the “smart” Republicans are emulating Clinton to be relevant in the coming century. For example, it is no wonder that the Bush children (George Jr. and Jeb) had to shed their ultra conservative positions to be relevant in the current politics. In fact, not only the Bush siblings, it was generally recognized that those Republicans who did well were those who “re-invented” themselves in the Clinton image. That is a monumental achievement for the poor guy from Hope, Arkansas who was raised mainly by his mother — Virginia, of blessed memory. Without the political environment created by Clinton, how could Jeb or his brother have been forced to recognize the importance of the minorities, or how could Governor Pataki of New York or Mayor Gulliani (whom many believe was rightly called Rudolph Hitler by one the contestants during the last election due to his undisguised and often aggressive hatred of minorities) have been behaving by now. They probably might have been devoting all their energies to building more prison camps to contain the minorities instead of scuttling now to grudgingly recognize their relevance. These national achievements can only be attributed to Clinton — and the Republicans are mortified by the prospects of perpetually playing second fiddle to Clinton.
Why is Impeachment Good for Clinton?
The curious question would then be, Why would a Clinton supporter opt for impeachment? I have briefly explained above why censure would be the worst terrible option for him at this time. Now let me also briefly deal with why impeachment is his best option at this point. Of course there is no doubt that my preferred option is for the Republicans to recognize the futility of their actions and recoil back to sanity by jettisoning their insidious efforts to defy the consistent, vocal and loud will and acclamations of the American people who have never failed to declare what they want. I have been hearing many different theories of democracies and representation, and the interesting one Henry Hyde and his henchmen are fostering on us now is that the majority views of the people are not important in a representative democracy. In fact, Henry Hyde is demonstrating that the dictatorship of the minority is possible even in God’s own America — the citadel of democracy.
We are however, still watching to see how Henry Hyde plays out the ultimate contradictions in their chosen path but let me briefly deal with why impeachment is the best for Clinton and the worst alternative for the Republicans.
Impeachment is first and foremost a political process. It is simply the equivalent of indictment in a criminal proceedings. Under the Judeo-Christian tradition of American jurisprudence, indictment does not mean that someone has been found guilty of the any offence. It simply means that the prosecutor with the nodding of grand jury thinks that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a felony has been committed. Millions of people are indicted everyday and many of them are eventually found innocent in a trial of a jury of their peers. And once found innocent, the person proceeds with his or her life as usual.
In between the trial however, the prosecutors usually fly a number of trial balloons in the form of plea bargains which will promise the accused some form of reduced sentence for his or her confessions for those of similar crimes. Now depending on the accused person, the type of evidence against him and the many social factors involved, he might accept the plea bargain or insist on his right to trial by jury. It is interesting to note, at this point, that the prosecutors including even the judges are usually not happy with the accused who insists on a trial. The good news, however is not only that many accused persons insist on a trial but that many are actually acquitted in the trial.
Now, let us see what happens to the person if he had accepted the plea bargain offered by the prosecutors as his best option. Again depending on the plea bargain, he might have to spend sometime and/or suffer some kind of immediate punishment. But the most important and perhaps most damaging punishment for the accused is the negative legal record that is usually and undeniably created for the accused with the plea bargain. In other words, even if plea bargain, in its best form, might create an illusion of decreased immediate punishment for the accused, it will unarguably creates a permanent legal record of deviance for the accused. It is for the above reasons that no defense lawyer of any respect should ever advise his client to accept a plea bargain unless there are no arguments about the facts.
Now, let us see what happens to the accused or indicted person who insists on a trial and eventually wins. First he is acquitted and home free and secondly no deviance record is ever created for him. And the fact that he was ever accused would be of no legal, historical or substantive relevance. The case of Mr. Espy, the former Secretary of Agriculture in his trial by the Independent Counsel is perhaps, the most recent empirical evidence that indictment does not kill someone. If he had accepted plea bargain from the Independent Counsel, he would have had to live with the accusations for the rest of his life. But now that he has been tried and acquitted, he is home free and ready to restart his life.
The point I am making is that no defense counsel should ever advise his client to accept plea bargain unless there is a hundred percent probability of conviction. In other words, unless the facts of the case make the certainty of conviction absolute, no self-respecting defense lawyer should advise plea bargain.
In the current situation, not only are the facts of the case murky, political and arguable, the probability of conviction is zero. Given the current political equation in the country, there is no way that the Senate reality can be transformed from its current 55:45 ratio to the 67:33 equation that will be needed to convict and remove the President. I do not think that the above facts are in dispute because even the most virulent haters of Clinton will easily concede that they do not have the votes to convict and remove him from office in the Senate. So why is the Clinton camp so mortified of impeachment that they have gone out begging/pleading for censorship.
Like I said, I can understand why some Republicans and pseudo-friends would be pushing for censure because it is a sure way to short-circuit the constitutional process and mask the weakness and falsity of their position. I am however, totally at a loss to understand why Clinton’s political and legal advisers including some of his genuine friends will be pushing for some form of censure. Is it because they are afraid of trials? And why should lawyers be afraid of trials? More importantly, why should lawyers be afraid of trials where they are certain to win? Or are we witnessing a huge, gigantic and complex conspiracy against the Clintons that defies analysis and understanding?
I am very interested in the responses to the above questions. I am particularly interested in why defense lawyers should not jump at a trial where they are certain to win. What is so horrendous about Senate trial? I would like to know. Some have said that the trials will tear the country apart. Therefore Clinton should admit legal culpability and accept censure to spare the nation from protracted agony. Such are not only inverted arguments that are standing on their heads but they are plain wrong. The first argument against such philistine and senile statements is that Clinton did not impeach himself. If Ken Starr and his cohorts did not find it offensive and outrageously demeaning to constitute themselves into grossly over-paid federal sex cops, as Congressman Conyers rightly called them, why should Clinton not use all the legal and constitutional options to defend himself? The Republicans have sought to impeach him over the past four years and they are finally getting their wish. So the fault cannot be Clinton.
However, some more serious arguments in favor of Senate trial are:
1. For Clinton: The Senate trial will afford him the only legal and constitutional opportunity to exonerate himself. And since there will be no new embarrassing information which will be heard to further harm the President (because I think we have heard it all by now), the President should actually have nothing to fear from the trial. Once the Senate does not vote to convict him and remove him from office, he is home free and will be able to complete his tenure. Moreover, the Republican failure at the Senate will fundamentally destroy their credibility and expose their extremism to historical ridicule.
2. For the Presidency and Nation: Again, the arguments that the Senate trial will destroy the Presidency and the nation is not valid. The Senate trail of the President is a constitutional requirement and therefore, ipso facto cannot be destructive of the nation. It is a fundamental constitutional requirement that when a president is reasonably suspected to have committed high crimes and misdemeanor he, should be impeached by the House and tried by the Senate. So how can a Senate trial be destructive of the Presidency, the nation or the constitution? If the House votes to impeach the president as it is bent to, the only legal and constitutional option is for the Senate to complete the process with its own trial.
Anything, short of a Senate trial after a House vote for impeachment would be circumventing the constitution and therefore illegal. Equally, any vote for anything other than impeachment in the House will be evading the constitution and therefore illegal. The House should vote only for or against impeachment — and any other vote on this should be illegal. If the House then votes to impeach the President, the Senate trial must proceed, and if the House votes not to impeach, then the matter should be considered dead. If we want to change the law to include other options, then it should be done later, because we cannot change the rules of the game at the middle of the game. As at now, the only options in the Constitution are impeachment or nothing.
There will therefore be nothing in the Senate trial that will be offending to our national process. In fact, a Senate trial will represent the ultimate affirmation of our democratic process. That we can put our President on public trial for such obviously mundane infrastructure affirms our generation as continuing the revolt of our founding fathers who rose against King George and all his monarchical assumptions.
The truth is that Americans are, in a sense, the ultimate rebels. We started life by carrying arms against a foreign monarchy for his dictatorial actions. And our founding Fathers constructed a system that carried on the tradition of fighting the possible rise of dictatorships through their various constitutional provisions. Impeachment is therefore, one of their major guards against the possible rise of dictatorships in the system. It is therefore a healthy process — one that should be welcomed, if and when it does occur. No one is suggesting that impeachment is a light process and/or that it should be embarked upon recklessly. All we are saying is that it is not something someone or the nation should be mortally afraid of because it could also be healthy for the nation.
The children and everyone watching it could really come to see and believe that truly everyone is subject to the law when transgressions are reasonably suspected. And the President by standing the trial, will be affirming his mortality and bondage with the common man in two major ways. First he will be confirming to the American people that the law is truly no respecter of persons. Secondly, he will be empirically communicating to the American people and especially the children that one should stand up to his rights. It will represent the prime time demonstration of what Hilary Clinton had once told Senator D’Amato. When Senator D’Amato first started harassing the First Lady through his Senate Committee, she effectively stopped the pugnacious Senator when she openly, solemnly and firmly declared, “My father taught me never to give in to bullies.” That statement was one of the major events that sent the Senator packing and running for cover. The Senator never attacked the First Lady after that statement. Unfortunately for the Senator, the First Lady carried the battle to the Senator’s home front here in New York when during the last Senatorial race (of November 1998), she called the Senator, “a Jesse Helm’s clone.” She reminded us New Yorkers that we deserve a better senatorial representation than someone who votes like the ultra conservative Jesse Helms. New Yorkers agreed with the First Lady and overwhelmingly voted out Al D’Amato which is good riddance because he was truly an oddity as our Senator.
I particularly like the First Lady because she stood up against the bullying tactics of the Senator and his cohorts. I personally hate oppression and I hate bullies myself and will personally join any fight anytime, anywhere against bullies. These whole crises are the results of mindless and unrelenting witch hunts against the Clintons that are clearly unjust, unprecedented, and un-American, and by fighting it all the way to its constitutional provision, President Clinton would be teaching the American children that one does not have to give in to bullies just as the First Lady did. Moreover, he will be doing a great service to the Presidency by showing future presidents that they do not have to give in to the partisan pressures and threat of impeachment by the congress but must stand up to their rights. Moreover, as the chief law office of the country, is it not also part of his duties to insist that the law and the constitution must be followed?
It is for all the above that I insist that impeachment will not be as bad as it is being made out to be. It is just like indictment where the person is presumed innocent according to our law which shows the quality and superiority of our jurisprudence. The presumption of innocence as the fundamental feature of our jurisprudence is the root of the superiority of our political system. That an accused person is presumed innocent is the proud heritage of our democracy and what distinguishes us from tin-god dictatorships like Saddam Hussein in Iraq or Nigeria’s General Abacha where the Head of State is also the law.
In the United States, we are different. Our laws are independent of individuals and must not be bent to exonerate or punish any individual. — no matter how high or low. Also no one should ever be pressured directly or indirectly to accept any guilt to which one is not comfortable with. In this case, I see the orchestrated concentric efforts on Clinton to publicly plead guilty and accept censorship as a deliberate effort to sabotage the constitution and circumvent the law.
The job of the House is to impeach the President if they feel that they have good grounds; and the impeachment grounds are so vague that anyone who wants to vote for impeachment can always find enough grounds to do so. I do not think there are enough grounds for impeachment at this time, but I do not think it is useful to protest against any one’s impeachment vote. I however think that it is sinister and malicious for anyone to vote for impeachment and then start calling on the President to admit guilt and/or to resign as Henry Hyde did over the weekend. It is a dirty old man’s trick. Why pressure the president to resign. His Committee has voted to impeach the President in a most partisan vote of our recorded history in clear opposition and arrogant defiance of America’s general will only to turn around and start asking the President to resign. It is democracy a la Henry Hyde — dictatorship and arrogance of the minority.
The whole episode is why some have called Clinton, the first black President because Republican strategy largely mimics the various ways that prosecutors use to get blacks into prisons. First, the prosecutor charges the black with some heinous crimes, then pressures him to accept them in some forms for the prospect of a reduced sentence. The prosecutor then gets angry and impatient and threatens more hell and fire if the accused does not accept and confess quick enough to declare himself guilty. The accused protests and protests to no avail until exhausted, he accepts and signs anything that is put in front of him. The judge and the system is now happy with the prosecutor because he has made their job quite easy while the accused minority is put away for life. Meanwhile, the prosecutor is promoted to higher positions where he continues his ungodly acts.
My point therefore, is that it is regrettable that Henry Hyde and his over zealous Republicans in the Committee should vote for Clinton’s impeachment but that I find it maliciously contrite, disingenuous and dishonest for him to start calling for the President’s resignation. If Henry Hyde and his henchmen know that a trial will tear the country apart, then they should not vote for impeachment. Clinton did not vote for impeachment. It is Henry Hyde and his band who deliberately and consciously voted for impeachment. It was William Shakespeare who correctly said that, what ever will be will be.”
So, let it be. We shall have the trial of William Jefferson Clinton in the Senate, and whatever will be will be. But I can assure Henry Hyde and his bunch one thing — that William Jefferson Clinton will not be the loser in the Senate vote. Thank God, the Republicans just do not have enough votes in the Senate to convict and/or remove the President. This means that Henry Hyde and his cohorts will obviously fail in their ultimate ambition of removing the President.
Now, what happens in the post-impeachment-era after all the Republican efforts have finally failed to remove Clinton from office. People may then be sober to sit back and reflect on the whole crisis and to appreciate the height of personal injustice and invasion of privacy which the Clintons endured. The hypocrisy, single-mindedness and viciousness of Ken Starr’s approach would then be discussed;and there might be a mass revolt by the Republicans to unseat their recalcitrant and heady leaderships just as they revolted against Newt after he led them through the election disaster.
Meanwhile, Clinton’s policies would gain greater credence and he will sail through 1999 and triumphantly hands over the mantle of leadership to Al Gore who will continue Clinton’s enlightenment policies.
Perhaps, the last questions on this are — should our nation be ashamed of the trial? Will it diminish our global stature to see our President on trial in the Senate? The answers to the questions are resounding no. There is no reason for us to be ashamed. In fact we should be proud of our vigorous democracy. Some other nations may actually admire what we are doing. We are showing the whole world that our President is also under the law. It may help others to believe us more when we tell them to go democratic and to respect the rule of law.
It is for all the above reasons that I urge Clinton again:
1. Not to agree to any act of perjury
2. Not to seek or accept censure, no matter how mild it might seem.
3. To insist on Senate trial — because he will get his best outcome there — complete acquittal and historical shame and blame for the Republicans.
Thank you and good luck.
Sincerely yours
Amechi Okolo, PhD.
+ PS: With your permission, I am sending a copy of this letter to the following who are very important and genuinely close to you at this point:
1. The First Lady: Her views on these issues are very important; and must be sought. I need not remind you that she is your most eloquent and most credible defender.
2. The First Daughter, Chelsea: I know that she is young and must be protected. But she is growing and reality demands that she must deal with these matters. Therefore, the more information she has about them the better.
3. The Vice-President, Al Gore: He is your heir apparent and is therefore entitled to all the inner details and decisions about this case.
4. Your Legal Team and Political Advisers: So that they may be persuaded to change their strategy.
5. The Chief of Staff: Hopefully, you will make copies available to all your Cabinet Officers so that an informed administration debate, discussions and understanding can ensure.
Monday, January 15, 2007
On the Trial and Execution of Saddam Hussein
The Trial and Execution of Saddam: My Preliminary Reactions and Analysis By © Amechi Okolo, Ph.D.
The trial and execution of Saddam is a ruse. He was executed in Iraq in the predawn of Saturday, December 30, 2006; and to pass the execution as the judicial decision of a sovereign, independent, democratic country is the biggest joke of the century because Iraq is neither sovereign nor democratic nor independent. The trial was also nothing but the caucusing of a vindictive blood-hungry sectarian cult. Therefore, only Bush and his clones will believe that a country occupied by 140,000+ foreign troops is sovereign and can make sovereign, independent decisions or that elections held with such number of hostile foreign occupation boots on the ground are democratic or independent. Iraq is neither democratic nor sovereign nor independent – and will never be – unless and until Bush pulls out his occupation forces. Right now the only thing Iraq has is “limited sovereignty” or “shared sovereignty” and not sovereignty or independence. Iraq currently operates as one of our states except that it does not enjoy the peace and security that we do. The biggest lie we also tell ourselves is that Bush did not have any Iraq post-invasion plan. It is therefore not true that Bush did not have plans of what to do with Iraq after the successful invasion and removal of Saddam. In fairness to Bush, it must be noted that Bush was not the source of the massive circulating lies that the administration did not prepare for post-Saddam Iraq. These particular, mass-circulating lies were started by the talking heads, the academia, the intellectuals, liberals, the Democrats and a whole host of others who felt compelled to jump ship and criticize Bush after their chorus support for the war became unsustainable when the war went sour. The Bush crowd could not have started the false rumors because they actually planned for post-Saddam Iraq. They had detailed massive plans for the transformation of all aspects of Iraq’s social, political and military systems. The had planned to disband Iraqi military and the police and to rebuild them from the scratch. However, it was not just the security forces that Bush planned to dismantle and rebuild to their own image. Bush also planned to dismantle the economy starting with a new currency and new laws to privatize Iraqi economy and set conditions for foreign (American) companies. They also planned to destroy/dismantle the educational system and the medical system. There was no aspect of the economy that they planned to leave untouched.
Even before the war Bush forces had organized many economic conferences and workshops for the various industries and experts vied for the control and domination of different sectors of Iraqi economies. Actually, the enormous opportunities for profits and grafts that would be available to various American businesses in a destroyed and occupied Iraq were the main selling points that Bush used to garner the support of American business titans and titans for the war. This point is important because we have always said that Bush attacked Iraq because of oil. Yes, the oil sector was a cardinal sector in propelling Bush to attack Iraq. But, beyond oil, the other sectors of American economy were also actively involved in pushing for the war because they all saw some goodies for them in a devastated and occupied Iraq. So let us stop talking of oil as if oil was the only sector that stood to benefit from Bush’s bellicosity in Iraq.
No. The titans and experts of the American political economy saw the Iraqi war as the new economic frontier for their unbridled plunder, loot and exploitation. In fact the main worries of the American business/commercial establishment (the American bourgeoisie) then, was to ensure that European bourgeois class was not allowed to share the Iraqi loot, hence the constant warnings by the American media that Europeans who did not help us overthrow Saddam would not be allowed to do business in “our” Iraq. Tom Brokaw of NBC and Dan Rather of ABC said during the “shock and awe” bombing of Iraq that we did not want to bomb the television station because soon it would be “ours”. Actually, the American media -- CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, New York Times, etc – acted as Bush’s megaphones and trumpets for the war. New York Times and other media outlets later apologized for their uncritical acceptance of Bush’s wartime talking points, which is useless because the deeds were already done.
Apart from oil, the other industry that benefited from the invasion, destruction and occupation of Iraq is the American industrial-military-complex. This is the industry that not only will refurbish and replenish the vast American equipments and munitions that were used by the American armed forces but would also supply and replenish the Iraqi security forces from the scratch. When we hear of these multiple billions of dollars spent on the wars, we must know that these are billions for American businesses and companies because Bush attacked Iraq. Has anyone wondered what it would take to equip Iraq security forces from the scratch, then you will know how grateful these companies are to Bush for starting the war – then you will know why Bush is the darling of American business and company owners. One would also appreciate why, during the 2000 election, Ralph Nader called Bush, “a corporation masquerading as a human being.” It was shocking and surprising to me why Nader should describe Bush as “a corporation,” given that Bush had not even assumed the presidency in 2000 and that the war had not started. However, it was an accurate definition of Bush and I have not seen a better one since then.
George Bush was therefore, God-sent especially for the American auto industry because the war was a timely bonanza for the struggling industry that has been in doldrums and being smacked by Toyota of Japan. Once we understand the huge business and profit potentials the war posed for the captains of American businesses, and not just the oil industry, we will begin to appreciate why they have remained the war cheerleaders. Bush jokingly calls these his core supporters, “the haves and the have-mores” but he is serious and quite correct. Hence, General Smedley Butler called war, a racket. According to his book, War is a Racket:
WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.[1]
He continued:
In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows. How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?[2]
Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.[3]
Major-General Smedley D. Butler, the leading American pugilist in the first half of the nineteenth century and the Two-Time Congressional Honor Medal Recipient changed and became a leading pacifist after his long meritorious military career. According to him:
For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.[4]
General Butler’s book is very informative. We read it in my class. Especially this period of Bush warfare, I will most strongly, recommend this book for every American. General Butler’s conversion to pacifism is also noteworthy and laudable. I only hope the more Bush’s Iraqi soldiers and generals would read this very informative Butler’s book. At least, it would put the Iraqi war into better perspectives for them. Especially, officers must read wide because war is not just about shooting a gun but must understand the political economy of one’s home base and the enemy. This means that the officers must understand the political, economic and sociological conditions of both his home base and his theatre of operations. This is why Carl Von Clausewitz, the leading war theoretician, called, “war, the continuation of politics by other means.”[5] I thought “Strategic Studies” at University of Ife, Nigeria for ten years. Many of my students were mid-level military officers (Captains and Majors) who needed to pass my program for promotions to senior officer levels. I also had Foreign Ministry officials who needed the course for their career advancements. I also conducted yearly seminars for top Nigerian military, government and business leaders at the Nigerian Institute of Policy and Strategic Studies, (NIPSS), Kuru, Jos. Some of my students, both from the University and NIPSS, later moved on to occupy prominent positions in Nigeria’s military, government and society. The two major themes of my teachings in Strategic Studies were (a) that warfare is too important to be left to generals alone, and (b) that military officers must understand the essence of the Clausewitzian dictum that war is the continuation of politics by another means. These require that soldiers must understand the cultures of their operational theatres; otherwise, they would have a lot to regret. A lot of Clausewitzian dicta are applicable to our officers today in Iraq – a country they attacked and occupied without understanding its culture. For example, it was reported that Bush did not know that there were Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq, yet he ordered the attack, which is a major source of their bumbling incompetence in Iraq. The military should have known about the various cultural divisions and fault lines in Iraq by sending human intelligence and reconnaissance forces long before the invasion especially since it was a war of choice when Bush chose the time and place of attack.
On the losses and profits of warfare, Butler stated that the benefits of war go only to very few while the majority suffers various mishaps. He wrote:
fortunes would be made. Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well. Yes, they are getting ready for another war. Why shouldn't they? It pays high dividends. (Mine emphasis). [6]
He continued:
But what does it profit the men who are killed? What does it profit their mothers and sisters, their wives and their sweethearts? What does it profit their children? What does it profit anyone except the very few to whom war means huge profits? Yes, and what does it profit the nation? (Mine emphasis).[7]
Even though, Butler was writing about the war drums of the 1930s, his facts and questions are apt and relevant for us today about Bush’s Iraq war. What is in it for us as Americans? Nothing except deaths, sufferings, etc. What does America gain as a nation from the war? Nothing, except diminished world respect and increased world anger at us. Who gains from the war? Only Bush, Cheney, their business friends, associates and acquaintances.
The case of Cheney, the Vice-President is particularly nauseating and insidious. His company, Halliburton is the major profiteer from no-bid Iraqi contracts. For a Vice-President to push for a choice war from which his company and its subsidiaries would benefit the most is the height of duplicity, corruption and criminality. In any other country, he would have been arrested and tried for murder and high treason. In America he is the super patriot because he insists that we must continue to fight, even though, this same man never touched a riffle in his life to fight for America. During the Vietnam war years, when it was his time to fight for his nation, he raised and used all the available deferments to avoid the draft including having children.
There is something cynically ironical and insidious for a nation dragged to a war through lies by the President and Vice-President who deliberately, actively and artfully avoided active duties during their own times. Now they parade themselves as super patriots as they goad and entice our young men and women to kill and be killed in Iraq. I honestly want to know what patriotic thing Bush or Cheney ever did for this country. What is patriotic in flying around in Air Force Ones and Twos with coterie of security guards and forces to guard them and their children including Bush’s drunkard twins who should be in Iraq to support their father’s war machines. Even Prince Williams of Great Britain is being shipped to Iraq as part of his national service. What do we have in Americas are two irresponsible presidential twins junketing the world on our tax bills and with our security details and embarrassing us as a nation.
Hospitals have been smashed and destroyed and will have to be rebuilt, which means billions of dollars for various industries – pharmaceutical industries, equipment manufacturers and various hospital suppliers. The school system has been destroyed which means that billions of dollars will be used to build schools, supply books and equipments, train teachers, etc. The food industry is not left behind. Food production is seriously impaired so that Iraqis are now highly dependent on imported American food to the gloating of American farmers who are always looking for export markets.
So the war has been very good for American businesses, which was why they went in to begin with and are now very reluctant to leave. This is why we must stop blaming oil alone because the entire American business benefits from the war. The only people that lose from the war are the common Americans who are being “drafted” into the war because of the vanishing opportunities in other areas. The poor Americans (whites, blacks, Hispanics, etc.) are the only losers of this Bush war. Poor Americans are the only ones suffering and getting killed and maimed in this Bush-Cheney war. Never the Bush daughters, nor the Cheney children, nor the children of Congressional lawmakers, with the exception of Senator Jim Webb[8] and one or two others are ever in any danger because of the war. Ironically, it is not only that the Bush daughters are not fighting the “patriotic war” that their father loves so much but their father made sure that he avoided the warfront when it was his time to fight for America. Thus, Bush’s professor at Harvard business school explained how Bush dodged going to Vietnam war as reported by to Corky Siemaszko of Daily News:
President Bush’s former Harvard Business School prof. says his ex-student supported the Vietnam war but wanted somebody else to fight it. Yoshi Tsurumi said yesterday that Bush told him his father’s connections got him into the Texas Air National Guard. But what really disturbed me was that he said that he was for the Vietnam War…. “I said, ‘George, that’s hypocritical. You won’t fight a war that you support but you expect other people to fight it for you.’ He just smirked.”[9]
According to Tsurumi:
“Bush had no sense of guilt” about getting into the guard while others wound up fighting in Vietnam. “He was very casual about it,” the professor said, “I said , ‘Lucky you, how did you manage it?’ He said, ‘My father had a good friend who put me ahead of the waiting list.’ ”[10]
In fact, they had plans for total transformation of the entire political economy of Iraq and not just for the removal or Saddam or regime change as usually dubbed. No society or regime had ever planned or undertaken such a massive, comprehensive and total transformation of another society as the Bush crowd planned and began effecting in Iraq. Thus the high crimes against humanity committed by the Bush crowd due to their Iraq adventure is not just the horrendous crimes, deaths, carnage, tortures they caused and are spreading there, but because Bush planned for colonialism in Iraq – something that was specifically outlawed by the United Nations Charter and something no other nation has tried in modern times. If Bush wants Iraq to be free, he should get out of Iraq completely now and hand over every thing to the UN just as we did in Kosovo. Only the "Kosovo Model" where we did not try to occupy the area will end our present quagmire in Iraq. The rushed killing or murder of Saddam will not help. The UN will appoint a Coordinator who will organize peace keepers to go and pacify the area. The costs will be paid by the US because we caused the whole mess. Insurgency and sectarian killings will end once America is seen to be genuinely out or on its way out. The current killings are protests against America's occupation and not because Iraqis like insurgency. It must also be noted and emphasized that Saddam was an American child. He was groomed and nurtured by America. Most of the crimes he committed were with direct support and complicities of America, so legally America is as much the criminal as Saddam. For us to forget our historical relationship with Saddam and behave as if history does not exist beats my imagination. I can understand the Bush gang pretending and orchestrating such absurdity but for the media and most academia to also be singing the Bush chorus is shameful. You see the Bush gang has a vested interest in presenting Saddam in the worst possible light because they overthrew him and are now committing lots havocs and mayhem in Iraq so they must keep up their stories and lies to keep justifying their action. So, I can understand the above human tendencies and proclivities, but why should I also join the Bush bandwagon? What is in it for me? Why should I, as an academician, not investigate the totality of Saddam-American relations to understand what really happened? Also why should the media and some other academicians not do the same critical investigation and analysis the crucial historical partnerships between Saddam and America? Such a critical approach is important and absolutely necessary for the American people because I am not working for the Bush administration. If I were a Bush official, it would be my job to try to come up with many “elegant” ways to slam Saddam so as to continue to justify Bush’s actions. But I am not a Bush official and I am not paid by the Bush government. As an academician, I am paid by the society to represent their interests. Governments come and go but the society is permanent. This major difference between my job and Bush’s current job is that he is a politician. As a politician, he is partisan, transient and transitory. Partisan means being biased and taking sides; and transient means that sooner or later his time will be over whether he likes it or not. His job is temporal, fleeting and ephemeral. For example, whatever happens, Bush term will end on January 20, 2009. He would vacate the White House on that day and will no longer be our president but America will continue because America is permanent. So why are some people behaving as if Bush owns this country and as if whatever he says represents the permanent, best interests of the US. Again, they are wrong. The hanging of Saddam is simply rushed and rash execution by Bush. He cannot deny it no matter how hard he tries. A death sentence in US requires many years of appeal before execution. In Iraq, Bush made them do it immediately and he is telling us that it is justice. A rushed justice is “justice denied.” Bush should tell us why the hurry? Now that Saddam has been executed at Bush's orders, they should send his head to him to keep him happy and to add to Saddam's pistol that he already has. When Saddam was captured in the “hole”, Bush took his pistol and was proud to show it off as one of his loots, exhibits and collections. Now that Saddam has been hanged, on one of Muslim’s holiest days and contrary to Muslim tradition, his head should be send to Bush to cap his satisfaction just as head of John the Baptist was sent to Herold. I only wish, Mr. Bush, Good luck in his continued acquisitions and accomplishments. He may however find out that Saddam's death does not solve his problems in Iraq. The violence in Iraq will continue as Iraq continues its proclivity towards anarchy, disintegration and chaos. More importantly, for Mr. Bush, the American people will continue to be mad at him for his Iraq folly. The American people already trumped, smashed and clipped his wings on November 7, 2006 in the midterm election. And if he thinks that the “trumpin” was too heavy for him, wait till November 2008 to see what the American people will do to the GOP unless he changes and change fast as they demanded in November 2006. Polls show that some eighty percent of Americans are now opposed to bush’s Iraq policy. This is enough to knock sense into any leader especially a leader in a democracy. But that is not Bush because he has never believed in democracy. He is adamant, arrogant, dictatorial, non-caring and nonchalant. He once told us that he will continue his Iraq policy even “if only Laura and Bonny” are the only ones supporting him. No leader should ever make such a threat to his people on an issue that is so gravely important to them as the Iraqi war is. But he did it because he does not care about us. He does not care about our countless deaths, sufferings and feelings and; in any case, we did not put him in office – we did not elect you. He imposed himself on us with the help of his family friends – James Baker and Supreme Court judges[1] – so our views are not important to him. Even Saddam Hussein could not have blurred such offending trash to his people even though he was supposed to be the maximal dictator. By hanging Saddam, Bush has only created a martyr for the Sunnis to rally around -- and do not be surprised when the legend of Saddam spreads beyond Iraq Sunnis to all Arab Sunnis -- even to Arabs which might include some Shiites. A recent poll showed that Saddam was the most popular Arab leader. This is very significant because while Bush has been busy saturating the media with massive negative half-truths about Saddam, the Arabs were busy reconstructing their own image of him and recasting him as their most preferred hero and leader. The Arab logic is simple and must be clearly understood by us for our own good. In addition to the destruction of Iraq, Arabs see America’s hands in most of their problems in the region and Saddam as the symbol of their resistance to America. This means that Bush has lost his pitched battle with Saddam in Iraq and the Arab world. The physical elimination of Saddam only elevated him [Saddam] to the status of heavenly and permanent martyrdom where he would continue to serve as the rallying call for opposition to America’s injustice. The botched, chaotic hanging by the Shiite lynch-mobs al-Maliki, the Vichy Iraqi Prime Minister and Bush; and the wrangling between Bush, “Iraqi government” and American military in Iraq compared to the dignified, ‘presidential’ and assertive behavior of Saddam from his “trials” to his death assures and consolidates him favorable and blissful immortality to his fellow Sunnis and Arabs. For ever, Bush will have the ghost of Saddam to haunt him. He will continue to explain to the world, why he rushed Saddam’s death, why he would not even let him stand for the real trial Ironically, Bush was therefore, the best thing that ever happened to Saddam. From the circus display which Bush called trial and justice to the chaotic Shiite lynch-mob lynching, Bush has cleaned and absorbed Saddam’s impurities and left him flying to high heavens in white glowing robes. More importantly, as more Iraqis are killed and maimed, as their beautiful infrastructure is destroyed, as their country is progressively laid to waste, as their lives are increasingly turned upside down, as their schools, hospitals and medical system, which were free and the best in the Middle East are shattered, as the assured lives, many of them had built up are ruined, as Iraqi women are progressively being forced back to Muslim fundamentalism; and as insurgency, counter-insurgency and sectarian violence mounts, Iraqis are reliving the nostalgic years of Saddam when the country was peaceful and secure and people were happy and thriving. Saddam did not provide a perfect country for the Iraqis. No one ever does and no country is perfect. Perfection belongs to the realm of the ideal and is what every country is striving to. The United States is a very fundamentally unfair and unjust system. It is structurally racist, the widening rich-poor gap is alarming, its electoral system that produced the ‘selected” Bush regime is shameful and appears intractable, the Savage Inequalities in the educational system, according to Jonathan Kozol is notorious, and the inequities of our criminal justice system cry to high heavens for correction, yet no one will suggest inviting the Martians to straighten us up. Yes, Saddam did not build a flawless Iraq, he built a better one than we can ever build in Iraq. More important, Saddam built a better system in Iraq than we have in America for Americans. To judge how the Iraqis faired under Saddam, we must go back to the 1980s before he invaded Iran which he did with substantial prodding, logistic and material supports from America and partly to help America out of its quagmire with the Iranian Ayatollahs. Comparative study of the American and the Iraqi regimes then show that Iraqis had better educational and health services (both of which were free then) than American can ever provide to its own citizens. The facts are there and people should go look them over instead of listening to Bush’s relentless lies, distortions and propaganda to justify his invasion and continued occupation of Iraq. In the 1980s, I was a professor in a Nigerian university. Nigeria is a resource-rich but chronically mismanaged country. In fact, Nigeria has always ranked among the second or third most corrupt country. This has been our unfortunate fate due to our historical bad and corrupt administrations. The few good administrations Mohammed and Idiagbon were both quickly overthrown in military coups with the help of American CIA only to throw Nigeria back to the dogs. One thing that Nigerians do very well, though is debate and argue about our fate and government. We even had a contentious fratricidal civil war to resolve our intractable crisis in late 1960s. Nigerians were first informed about Saddam Hussein and Iraq in the 1980s, by Dr. Tai Solarin, the noted distinguished social critic. Dr. Solarin had singled out Saddam Hussein and used him as a typical example of a state that was under good governance for the good and betterment of his people during one of our contentious debates about Nigeria’s fate and good governance. Dr. Solarin was no push over. I grew up reading his scratching critiques of various Nigerian governments. He was known and respected by Nigerians and revered as the “conscience of the nation.” For him to have endorsed Saddam and called on Nigerians and our leaders to look up to Iraq to see how to govern a country wisely should not be taken lightly because Tai, as he was fondly called, was not easy to please. Any member of my generation, who was interested in social justice and good governance read and followed Tai Solarin’s life, examples and works. I remember making a personal pilgrimage to his hometown and base, Ikenne, in Western Nigeria in the 1980s from my perch at Ife University to visit and commensurate with him. He is remembered today as a great educationist, farmer, teacher, social critic, philosopher, philanthropist, administrator, writer, columnist, motivator, moralist, mentor, mystic, atheist and above all the quintessential conscience of Nigerian nation.[2] (Mine Emphasis.) The Americans and the world are now certain that Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and pre-war intelligence (we hope to know more under the Democratic Congress), but few are bothered or care to know about Bush’s relentless lies, mendacity and mass propaganda to obfuscate and distort Saddam’s records to justify the illegal invasion and criminal occupation of Iraq. Bush’s logic is simple and understandable. Even when he reluctantly concedes that there were no weapons of mass destruction, Bush always affirms that the removal of Saddam is worth it because he was “an evil and brutal dictator; and that the world is better without him”. Bush affirms this position always as a matter of truism that needs no proof. We are supposed to believe him and seek no proof or evidence because God, the president said so. Fortunately for Bush, his ardent followers and even some opposition believe Bush that Saddam was a thorough evil and that the world is better without him. The last regime that had such opprobrium attached to was Hitler’s Nazism, yet the survivors of Nazi regime were accorded international trials at The Hague. Bush, on the other hand, organized a Kangaroo court through his Vichy government to try and hastily lynch and exterminate Saddam because they were scared of what he might reveal in a proper trial. Thus according to Slavoj Zizek: closer to the standard list of the bad guys, why was there little talk of delivering Saddam Hussein or, say, Manuel Noriega to The Hague? Why was the only trial against Mr. Noriega for drug trafficking, rather than for his murderous abuses as a dictator? Was it because he would have disclosed his past ties with the CIA?[3] Mr. Zizek Continued: In a similar way, Saddam Hussein’s regime was an abominable authoritarian state, guilty of many crimes, mostly toward its own people. However, one should note the strange but key fact that, when the United States representatives and the Iraqi prosecutors were enumerating his evil deeds, they systematically omitted what was undoubtedly his greatest crime in terms of human suffering and of violating international justice: his invasion of Iran. Why? Because the United States and the majority of foreign states were actively helping Iraq in this aggression. (Emphasis mine.)[4] The above information from Mr. Zizek is far more revealing than it initially appeared. Mr. Zizek was saying that from the conceptual phase of Saddam’s trial, that the Bush representatives and the Iraqi prosecutors did not include his greatest crimes, that they – “systematically omitted what was undoubtedly his greatest crime in terms of human suffering and of violating international justice: his invasion of Iran.” Yet, gassing of the Shiites and the Kurds, was the centerpiece of Saddam’s brutality, “against his own people” that Bush touted to confirm Saddam’s brutality and that he has WMD. To know that Bush never intended to try Saddam for the crime he had shouted and harped so much on is truly unbelievable and shocking. It confirms that Bush is a far bigger hoax than anyone can imagine. More importantly, it confirms that the accelerated, impromptu and hasty execution of Saddam Hussein was a done deal and long planned. Bush never intended to try Saddam for the crimes of “using WMD on his own people” because he was scared that Saddam might talk about the Reagan and Rumsfeld’s visit and deals with him during the Iraq-Iran war. Rumsfeld, as Special Envoy of President Reagan, visited and shook hands publicly with President Saddam Hussein on December 20, 1983.[5] This also means that the purported disappointment of White House and the US military in Iraq over the hasty execution of Saddam by “al-Maliki” is a ruse and fraud because they all had agreed earlier that Saddam would never be alive to face his gasification trials because of the ugly revelations that might occur. The other sinister aspect of the trial was the fact that they started with trying Saddam for the execution of the 182 members who had tried to assassinate him. Theoretically, that was the weakest of the charges against Saddam. I could never understand why Bush wanted to start with that charge because those charges were very puny. But it was the best that the Bush gang could muster since they could not charge him for the real thing. The charge from the assassination attempt is weak because Saddam was the President of Iraq. Punishment for assassinations or assassination attempts is death in any system that I know of including the US. The people were tried by the operating legal system at the time, found guilty and put to deaths according to their law. I am still to understand what Saddam Hussein had to do with that the President and Commander-in-Chief of Iraqi Armed Forces. Under the premise of their trials, conviction and execution of Saddam Hussein, why should Bush and his Cabinet not be arrested, tried, convicted and executed like Saddam and his Cabinet? I do not see any difference except that Bush has a more powerful army that was able to defeat and arrest Saddam. I hope I am wrong and I stand to be corrected. However, if I happen to be right, which I strongly suspect that I am, then we are not talking about right or wrong. We are simply talking about ‘might is right’ which is a throwback to primitive pre-1815 Concert of Europe that recognized the sovereignty of states – a principle that was reinforced by the United Nations Charter of 1945. Hence, Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations repeatedly declared Bush’s invasion of Iraq illegal. I will therefore, truly like to know and many others will also like to know the difference between Saddam’s position and Bush’s; and I hope that lawyers and other experts will help us our here. With the logic of Saddam’s brutal dictatorship as Bush’s only remaining rationale for Bush’s travesty and criminality in Iraq, why should anyone not expect Bush to also continue to lie, hype and fabricate facts about Saddam. I am amazed at the reaction of most Americans and others. What we have done is akin to asking and believing a bully’s reason for trouncing his victim. In regular life we would also insist on hearing the victim’s side of the story. But here, the only voice we hear and are contented with is the bully’s voice who understandably so thoroughly paints the victim as an evil that he has no case worth hearing. I submit that it is unnatural, unethical and uncivilized for human beings to be so completely partisan, biased and clouded to concede the bully the unfettered and unchallenged right to crush and rout his victim and to also totally accept the bully’s rationale for trouncing him. George W. Bush is the bully. At least, he is the bigger bully of the two – thanks to America’s massive military power. Therefore, in this climactic struggle between the Bushes and Saddam[6], Bush easily, thoroughly and physically trounced and eliminated Saddam; and then saturated the media with his version, which was largely false, fabricated and/or hyped. But the truth cannot be hidden permanently, No matter how hard Bush and his Vichy Iraqi government clamp down on comparative truths, glimmers of prewar situation will still show up. Thus, according to Michael Luo: Along with its many other desperate problems, Iraq is in the midst of a housing crisis that is worsening by the day. It began right after the toppling of Saddam Hussein, when many landlords took advantage of the removal of his economic controls and raised rents substantially, forcing out thousands of families who took shelter in abandoned government buildings and military bases. As the chaos in Iraq grew and the ranks of the jobless swelled, even more Iraqis migrated to squalid squatter encampments. Still others constructed crude shantytowns on empty plots where conditions were even worse. Now, after more than 10 months of brutal sectarian reprisals, many more Iraqis have fled their neighborhoods, only to wind up often in places that are just as wretched in other ways. While 1.8 million Iraqis are living outside the country, 1.6 million more have been displaced within Iraq since the war began. Since February, about 50,000 per month have moved within the country.[7] He continued: Shelter is their most pressing need, aid organizations say. Some have been able to occupy homes left by members of the opposing sect or group; others have not been so fortunate. The longer the violence persists, the more Iraqis are running out of money and options. Shatha Talib, 30, her husband and five children, are among about a thousand struggling Iraqi families that have taken up residence in the bombed-out remains of the former Iraqi Air Defense headquarters and air force club in the center of Baghdad. “Nobody should live in such a place,” she said. “But we don’t have any other option.”[8] Not only in housing, but in the provision of other qualities of life, the conditions of Iraqis have plummeted since Bush’s invasion. But he provided them security, massive modern infrastructure for the system. Under Saddam, Iraqis were well fed. The Iraqis had the best educational system in the region. It was also free even to medical and law schools. Fuel and rations were cheap and highly subsidized by the government. The Saddam Hussein Iraq was secular because of the Baath Party so Iraqi women under Saddam were free to pursue any profession. In fact Iraqi women under Saddam were less encumbered than American women. All the material freedom and facilities that Iraqis enjoyed under Saddam are now gone and have become faint memories and fairy tales under the insurgent-sectarian chaotic realities of the Bush-Maliki regime. My heart goes out to the Iraqis because no country should ever be subjected to the kind of brutality, destruction, ruin and shame that Bush and the American forces have wrought on them for absolutely no cause at all except that we have a bunch of ego-driven, power-hungry maniacs who illegally ceased our White House and then used our enormous military power to terrorize, destroy and try to dominate the world. This is why I think that our first and most urgent task now is to throw away the illegal occupiers and “pretenders to the throne” at the White House and bring our troops home; and then talk about our enormous compensation to the Iraqis. [1] Read these three books to understand the depth of the illegalities involved in hoisting Bush on us: Greg Palast, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy (London: Pluto Press, 2002); Vincent Bugliosi, The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined Our Constitution and Chose Our President (New York: Nation Books, 2001); Alan M. Dershowitz, Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001) [2] Ray Ekpu, Newswatch, August 8, 1994 p. 28 [3] Slavoj Zizek, “Denying the Facts, Finding the Truth.” New York Times. January 5, 2007. [4] Ibid. [5] Joyce Battle, “Iraq: Declassified Document of U.S Support for Hussein.” Washington Post. February 27, 2003. [6] Peter Baker, “Conflicts Shaped Two Presidencies: U.S., Iraq Continue to Experience After effects of Their Confrontations,” , Washington Post, Sunday, December 31, 2006; A21 [7] Michael Luo, “Crisis in Housing Adds to Miseries of Iraq Mayhem,” New York Times December 29, 2006 [8] Ibid.
[1] General Smedley Butler, War is a Racket (New York: Round Table Press, 1935),
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Carl von Clausewitz, On War (London: Penguin Books, 1982)
[6] Butler, Op. Cit.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Senator Jim Webb (Democrat, Virginia), his son is an officer in Iraq. He made news when he told Bush that all he wanted was to bring his son and his friends back from Iraq.
[9] Read, Corky Siemaszko, “W for War but Eager to Avoid it, Prof .Recalls.” Daily News. Friday, September 10, 2004
[10] Ibid.
The trial and execution of Saddam is a ruse. He was executed in Iraq in the predawn of Saturday, December 30, 2006; and to pass the execution as the judicial decision of a sovereign, independent, democratic country is the biggest joke of the century because Iraq is neither sovereign nor democratic nor independent. The trial was also nothing but the caucusing of a vindictive blood-hungry sectarian cult. Therefore, only Bush and his clones will believe that a country occupied by 140,000+ foreign troops is sovereign and can make sovereign, independent decisions or that elections held with such number of hostile foreign occupation boots on the ground are democratic or independent. Iraq is neither democratic nor sovereign nor independent – and will never be – unless and until Bush pulls out his occupation forces. Right now the only thing Iraq has is “limited sovereignty” or “shared sovereignty” and not sovereignty or independence. Iraq currently operates as one of our states except that it does not enjoy the peace and security that we do. The biggest lie we also tell ourselves is that Bush did not have any Iraq post-invasion plan. It is therefore not true that Bush did not have plans of what to do with Iraq after the successful invasion and removal of Saddam. In fairness to Bush, it must be noted that Bush was not the source of the massive circulating lies that the administration did not prepare for post-Saddam Iraq. These particular, mass-circulating lies were started by the talking heads, the academia, the intellectuals, liberals, the Democrats and a whole host of others who felt compelled to jump ship and criticize Bush after their chorus support for the war became unsustainable when the war went sour. The Bush crowd could not have started the false rumors because they actually planned for post-Saddam Iraq. They had detailed massive plans for the transformation of all aspects of Iraq’s social, political and military systems. The had planned to disband Iraqi military and the police and to rebuild them from the scratch. However, it was not just the security forces that Bush planned to dismantle and rebuild to their own image. Bush also planned to dismantle the economy starting with a new currency and new laws to privatize Iraqi economy and set conditions for foreign (American) companies. They also planned to destroy/dismantle the educational system and the medical system. There was no aspect of the economy that they planned to leave untouched.
Even before the war Bush forces had organized many economic conferences and workshops for the various industries and experts vied for the control and domination of different sectors of Iraqi economies. Actually, the enormous opportunities for profits and grafts that would be available to various American businesses in a destroyed and occupied Iraq were the main selling points that Bush used to garner the support of American business titans and titans for the war. This point is important because we have always said that Bush attacked Iraq because of oil. Yes, the oil sector was a cardinal sector in propelling Bush to attack Iraq. But, beyond oil, the other sectors of American economy were also actively involved in pushing for the war because they all saw some goodies for them in a devastated and occupied Iraq. So let us stop talking of oil as if oil was the only sector that stood to benefit from Bush’s bellicosity in Iraq.
No. The titans and experts of the American political economy saw the Iraqi war as the new economic frontier for their unbridled plunder, loot and exploitation. In fact the main worries of the American business/commercial establishment (the American bourgeoisie) then, was to ensure that European bourgeois class was not allowed to share the Iraqi loot, hence the constant warnings by the American media that Europeans who did not help us overthrow Saddam would not be allowed to do business in “our” Iraq. Tom Brokaw of NBC and Dan Rather of ABC said during the “shock and awe” bombing of Iraq that we did not want to bomb the television station because soon it would be “ours”. Actually, the American media -- CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, New York Times, etc – acted as Bush’s megaphones and trumpets for the war. New York Times and other media outlets later apologized for their uncritical acceptance of Bush’s wartime talking points, which is useless because the deeds were already done.
Apart from oil, the other industry that benefited from the invasion, destruction and occupation of Iraq is the American industrial-military-complex. This is the industry that not only will refurbish and replenish the vast American equipments and munitions that were used by the American armed forces but would also supply and replenish the Iraqi security forces from the scratch. When we hear of these multiple billions of dollars spent on the wars, we must know that these are billions for American businesses and companies because Bush attacked Iraq. Has anyone wondered what it would take to equip Iraq security forces from the scratch, then you will know how grateful these companies are to Bush for starting the war – then you will know why Bush is the darling of American business and company owners. One would also appreciate why, during the 2000 election, Ralph Nader called Bush, “a corporation masquerading as a human being.” It was shocking and surprising to me why Nader should describe Bush as “a corporation,” given that Bush had not even assumed the presidency in 2000 and that the war had not started. However, it was an accurate definition of Bush and I have not seen a better one since then.
George Bush was therefore, God-sent especially for the American auto industry because the war was a timely bonanza for the struggling industry that has been in doldrums and being smacked by Toyota of Japan. Once we understand the huge business and profit potentials the war posed for the captains of American businesses, and not just the oil industry, we will begin to appreciate why they have remained the war cheerleaders. Bush jokingly calls these his core supporters, “the haves and the have-mores” but he is serious and quite correct. Hence, General Smedley Butler called war, a racket. According to his book, War is a Racket:
WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.[1]
He continued:
In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows. How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?[2]
Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.[3]
Major-General Smedley D. Butler, the leading American pugilist in the first half of the nineteenth century and the Two-Time Congressional Honor Medal Recipient changed and became a leading pacifist after his long meritorious military career. According to him:
For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.[4]
General Butler’s book is very informative. We read it in my class. Especially this period of Bush warfare, I will most strongly, recommend this book for every American. General Butler’s conversion to pacifism is also noteworthy and laudable. I only hope the more Bush’s Iraqi soldiers and generals would read this very informative Butler’s book. At least, it would put the Iraqi war into better perspectives for them. Especially, officers must read wide because war is not just about shooting a gun but must understand the political economy of one’s home base and the enemy. This means that the officers must understand the political, economic and sociological conditions of both his home base and his theatre of operations. This is why Carl Von Clausewitz, the leading war theoretician, called, “war, the continuation of politics by other means.”[5] I thought “Strategic Studies” at University of Ife, Nigeria for ten years. Many of my students were mid-level military officers (Captains and Majors) who needed to pass my program for promotions to senior officer levels. I also had Foreign Ministry officials who needed the course for their career advancements. I also conducted yearly seminars for top Nigerian military, government and business leaders at the Nigerian Institute of Policy and Strategic Studies, (NIPSS), Kuru, Jos. Some of my students, both from the University and NIPSS, later moved on to occupy prominent positions in Nigeria’s military, government and society. The two major themes of my teachings in Strategic Studies were (a) that warfare is too important to be left to generals alone, and (b) that military officers must understand the essence of the Clausewitzian dictum that war is the continuation of politics by another means. These require that soldiers must understand the cultures of their operational theatres; otherwise, they would have a lot to regret. A lot of Clausewitzian dicta are applicable to our officers today in Iraq – a country they attacked and occupied without understanding its culture. For example, it was reported that Bush did not know that there were Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq, yet he ordered the attack, which is a major source of their bumbling incompetence in Iraq. The military should have known about the various cultural divisions and fault lines in Iraq by sending human intelligence and reconnaissance forces long before the invasion especially since it was a war of choice when Bush chose the time and place of attack.
On the losses and profits of warfare, Butler stated that the benefits of war go only to very few while the majority suffers various mishaps. He wrote:
fortunes would be made. Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well. Yes, they are getting ready for another war. Why shouldn't they? It pays high dividends. (Mine emphasis). [6]
He continued:
But what does it profit the men who are killed? What does it profit their mothers and sisters, their wives and their sweethearts? What does it profit their children? What does it profit anyone except the very few to whom war means huge profits? Yes, and what does it profit the nation? (Mine emphasis).[7]
Even though, Butler was writing about the war drums of the 1930s, his facts and questions are apt and relevant for us today about Bush’s Iraq war. What is in it for us as Americans? Nothing except deaths, sufferings, etc. What does America gain as a nation from the war? Nothing, except diminished world respect and increased world anger at us. Who gains from the war? Only Bush, Cheney, their business friends, associates and acquaintances.
The case of Cheney, the Vice-President is particularly nauseating and insidious. His company, Halliburton is the major profiteer from no-bid Iraqi contracts. For a Vice-President to push for a choice war from which his company and its subsidiaries would benefit the most is the height of duplicity, corruption and criminality. In any other country, he would have been arrested and tried for murder and high treason. In America he is the super patriot because he insists that we must continue to fight, even though, this same man never touched a riffle in his life to fight for America. During the Vietnam war years, when it was his time to fight for his nation, he raised and used all the available deferments to avoid the draft including having children.
There is something cynically ironical and insidious for a nation dragged to a war through lies by the President and Vice-President who deliberately, actively and artfully avoided active duties during their own times. Now they parade themselves as super patriots as they goad and entice our young men and women to kill and be killed in Iraq. I honestly want to know what patriotic thing Bush or Cheney ever did for this country. What is patriotic in flying around in Air Force Ones and Twos with coterie of security guards and forces to guard them and their children including Bush’s drunkard twins who should be in Iraq to support their father’s war machines. Even Prince Williams of Great Britain is being shipped to Iraq as part of his national service. What do we have in Americas are two irresponsible presidential twins junketing the world on our tax bills and with our security details and embarrassing us as a nation.
Hospitals have been smashed and destroyed and will have to be rebuilt, which means billions of dollars for various industries – pharmaceutical industries, equipment manufacturers and various hospital suppliers. The school system has been destroyed which means that billions of dollars will be used to build schools, supply books and equipments, train teachers, etc. The food industry is not left behind. Food production is seriously impaired so that Iraqis are now highly dependent on imported American food to the gloating of American farmers who are always looking for export markets.
So the war has been very good for American businesses, which was why they went in to begin with and are now very reluctant to leave. This is why we must stop blaming oil alone because the entire American business benefits from the war. The only people that lose from the war are the common Americans who are being “drafted” into the war because of the vanishing opportunities in other areas. The poor Americans (whites, blacks, Hispanics, etc.) are the only losers of this Bush war. Poor Americans are the only ones suffering and getting killed and maimed in this Bush-Cheney war. Never the Bush daughters, nor the Cheney children, nor the children of Congressional lawmakers, with the exception of Senator Jim Webb[8] and one or two others are ever in any danger because of the war. Ironically, it is not only that the Bush daughters are not fighting the “patriotic war” that their father loves so much but their father made sure that he avoided the warfront when it was his time to fight for America. Thus, Bush’s professor at Harvard business school explained how Bush dodged going to Vietnam war as reported by to Corky Siemaszko of Daily News:
President Bush’s former Harvard Business School prof. says his ex-student supported the Vietnam war but wanted somebody else to fight it. Yoshi Tsurumi said yesterday that Bush told him his father’s connections got him into the Texas Air National Guard. But what really disturbed me was that he said that he was for the Vietnam War…. “I said, ‘George, that’s hypocritical. You won’t fight a war that you support but you expect other people to fight it for you.’ He just smirked.”[9]
According to Tsurumi:
“Bush had no sense of guilt” about getting into the guard while others wound up fighting in Vietnam. “He was very casual about it,” the professor said, “I said , ‘Lucky you, how did you manage it?’ He said, ‘My father had a good friend who put me ahead of the waiting list.’ ”[10]
In fact, they had plans for total transformation of the entire political economy of Iraq and not just for the removal or Saddam or regime change as usually dubbed. No society or regime had ever planned or undertaken such a massive, comprehensive and total transformation of another society as the Bush crowd planned and began effecting in Iraq. Thus the high crimes against humanity committed by the Bush crowd due to their Iraq adventure is not just the horrendous crimes, deaths, carnage, tortures they caused and are spreading there, but because Bush planned for colonialism in Iraq – something that was specifically outlawed by the United Nations Charter and something no other nation has tried in modern times. If Bush wants Iraq to be free, he should get out of Iraq completely now and hand over every thing to the UN just as we did in Kosovo. Only the "Kosovo Model" where we did not try to occupy the area will end our present quagmire in Iraq. The rushed killing or murder of Saddam will not help. The UN will appoint a Coordinator who will organize peace keepers to go and pacify the area. The costs will be paid by the US because we caused the whole mess. Insurgency and sectarian killings will end once America is seen to be genuinely out or on its way out. The current killings are protests against America's occupation and not because Iraqis like insurgency. It must also be noted and emphasized that Saddam was an American child. He was groomed and nurtured by America. Most of the crimes he committed were with direct support and complicities of America, so legally America is as much the criminal as Saddam. For us to forget our historical relationship with Saddam and behave as if history does not exist beats my imagination. I can understand the Bush gang pretending and orchestrating such absurdity but for the media and most academia to also be singing the Bush chorus is shameful. You see the Bush gang has a vested interest in presenting Saddam in the worst possible light because they overthrew him and are now committing lots havocs and mayhem in Iraq so they must keep up their stories and lies to keep justifying their action. So, I can understand the above human tendencies and proclivities, but why should I also join the Bush bandwagon? What is in it for me? Why should I, as an academician, not investigate the totality of Saddam-American relations to understand what really happened? Also why should the media and some other academicians not do the same critical investigation and analysis the crucial historical partnerships between Saddam and America? Such a critical approach is important and absolutely necessary for the American people because I am not working for the Bush administration. If I were a Bush official, it would be my job to try to come up with many “elegant” ways to slam Saddam so as to continue to justify Bush’s actions. But I am not a Bush official and I am not paid by the Bush government. As an academician, I am paid by the society to represent their interests. Governments come and go but the society is permanent. This major difference between my job and Bush’s current job is that he is a politician. As a politician, he is partisan, transient and transitory. Partisan means being biased and taking sides; and transient means that sooner or later his time will be over whether he likes it or not. His job is temporal, fleeting and ephemeral. For example, whatever happens, Bush term will end on January 20, 2009. He would vacate the White House on that day and will no longer be our president but America will continue because America is permanent. So why are some people behaving as if Bush owns this country and as if whatever he says represents the permanent, best interests of the US. Again, they are wrong. The hanging of Saddam is simply rushed and rash execution by Bush. He cannot deny it no matter how hard he tries. A death sentence in US requires many years of appeal before execution. In Iraq, Bush made them do it immediately and he is telling us that it is justice. A rushed justice is “justice denied.” Bush should tell us why the hurry? Now that Saddam has been executed at Bush's orders, they should send his head to him to keep him happy and to add to Saddam's pistol that he already has. When Saddam was captured in the “hole”, Bush took his pistol and was proud to show it off as one of his loots, exhibits and collections. Now that Saddam has been hanged, on one of Muslim’s holiest days and contrary to Muslim tradition, his head should be send to Bush to cap his satisfaction just as head of John the Baptist was sent to Herold. I only wish, Mr. Bush, Good luck in his continued acquisitions and accomplishments. He may however find out that Saddam's death does not solve his problems in Iraq. The violence in Iraq will continue as Iraq continues its proclivity towards anarchy, disintegration and chaos. More importantly, for Mr. Bush, the American people will continue to be mad at him for his Iraq folly. The American people already trumped, smashed and clipped his wings on November 7, 2006 in the midterm election. And if he thinks that the “trumpin” was too heavy for him, wait till November 2008 to see what the American people will do to the GOP unless he changes and change fast as they demanded in November 2006. Polls show that some eighty percent of Americans are now opposed to bush’s Iraq policy. This is enough to knock sense into any leader especially a leader in a democracy. But that is not Bush because he has never believed in democracy. He is adamant, arrogant, dictatorial, non-caring and nonchalant. He once told us that he will continue his Iraq policy even “if only Laura and Bonny” are the only ones supporting him. No leader should ever make such a threat to his people on an issue that is so gravely important to them as the Iraqi war is. But he did it because he does not care about us. He does not care about our countless deaths, sufferings and feelings and; in any case, we did not put him in office – we did not elect you. He imposed himself on us with the help of his family friends – James Baker and Supreme Court judges[1] – so our views are not important to him. Even Saddam Hussein could not have blurred such offending trash to his people even though he was supposed to be the maximal dictator. By hanging Saddam, Bush has only created a martyr for the Sunnis to rally around -- and do not be surprised when the legend of Saddam spreads beyond Iraq Sunnis to all Arab Sunnis -- even to Arabs which might include some Shiites. A recent poll showed that Saddam was the most popular Arab leader. This is very significant because while Bush has been busy saturating the media with massive negative half-truths about Saddam, the Arabs were busy reconstructing their own image of him and recasting him as their most preferred hero and leader. The Arab logic is simple and must be clearly understood by us for our own good. In addition to the destruction of Iraq, Arabs see America’s hands in most of their problems in the region and Saddam as the symbol of their resistance to America. This means that Bush has lost his pitched battle with Saddam in Iraq and the Arab world. The physical elimination of Saddam only elevated him [Saddam] to the status of heavenly and permanent martyrdom where he would continue to serve as the rallying call for opposition to America’s injustice. The botched, chaotic hanging by the Shiite lynch-mobs al-Maliki, the Vichy Iraqi Prime Minister and Bush; and the wrangling between Bush, “Iraqi government” and American military in Iraq compared to the dignified, ‘presidential’ and assertive behavior of Saddam from his “trials” to his death assures and consolidates him favorable and blissful immortality to his fellow Sunnis and Arabs. For ever, Bush will have the ghost of Saddam to haunt him. He will continue to explain to the world, why he rushed Saddam’s death, why he would not even let him stand for the real trial Ironically, Bush was therefore, the best thing that ever happened to Saddam. From the circus display which Bush called trial and justice to the chaotic Shiite lynch-mob lynching, Bush has cleaned and absorbed Saddam’s impurities and left him flying to high heavens in white glowing robes. More importantly, as more Iraqis are killed and maimed, as their beautiful infrastructure is destroyed, as their country is progressively laid to waste, as their lives are increasingly turned upside down, as their schools, hospitals and medical system, which were free and the best in the Middle East are shattered, as the assured lives, many of them had built up are ruined, as Iraqi women are progressively being forced back to Muslim fundamentalism; and as insurgency, counter-insurgency and sectarian violence mounts, Iraqis are reliving the nostalgic years of Saddam when the country was peaceful and secure and people were happy and thriving. Saddam did not provide a perfect country for the Iraqis. No one ever does and no country is perfect. Perfection belongs to the realm of the ideal and is what every country is striving to. The United States is a very fundamentally unfair and unjust system. It is structurally racist, the widening rich-poor gap is alarming, its electoral system that produced the ‘selected” Bush regime is shameful and appears intractable, the Savage Inequalities in the educational system, according to Jonathan Kozol is notorious, and the inequities of our criminal justice system cry to high heavens for correction, yet no one will suggest inviting the Martians to straighten us up. Yes, Saddam did not build a flawless Iraq, he built a better one than we can ever build in Iraq. More important, Saddam built a better system in Iraq than we have in America for Americans. To judge how the Iraqis faired under Saddam, we must go back to the 1980s before he invaded Iran which he did with substantial prodding, logistic and material supports from America and partly to help America out of its quagmire with the Iranian Ayatollahs. Comparative study of the American and the Iraqi regimes then show that Iraqis had better educational and health services (both of which were free then) than American can ever provide to its own citizens. The facts are there and people should go look them over instead of listening to Bush’s relentless lies, distortions and propaganda to justify his invasion and continued occupation of Iraq. In the 1980s, I was a professor in a Nigerian university. Nigeria is a resource-rich but chronically mismanaged country. In fact, Nigeria has always ranked among the second or third most corrupt country. This has been our unfortunate fate due to our historical bad and corrupt administrations. The few good administrations Mohammed and Idiagbon were both quickly overthrown in military coups with the help of American CIA only to throw Nigeria back to the dogs. One thing that Nigerians do very well, though is debate and argue about our fate and government. We even had a contentious fratricidal civil war to resolve our intractable crisis in late 1960s. Nigerians were first informed about Saddam Hussein and Iraq in the 1980s, by Dr. Tai Solarin, the noted distinguished social critic. Dr. Solarin had singled out Saddam Hussein and used him as a typical example of a state that was under good governance for the good and betterment of his people during one of our contentious debates about Nigeria’s fate and good governance. Dr. Solarin was no push over. I grew up reading his scratching critiques of various Nigerian governments. He was known and respected by Nigerians and revered as the “conscience of the nation.” For him to have endorsed Saddam and called on Nigerians and our leaders to look up to Iraq to see how to govern a country wisely should not be taken lightly because Tai, as he was fondly called, was not easy to please. Any member of my generation, who was interested in social justice and good governance read and followed Tai Solarin’s life, examples and works. I remember making a personal pilgrimage to his hometown and base, Ikenne, in Western Nigeria in the 1980s from my perch at Ife University to visit and commensurate with him. He is remembered today as a great educationist, farmer, teacher, social critic, philosopher, philanthropist, administrator, writer, columnist, motivator, moralist, mentor, mystic, atheist and above all the quintessential conscience of Nigerian nation.[2] (Mine Emphasis.) The Americans and the world are now certain that Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and pre-war intelligence (we hope to know more under the Democratic Congress), but few are bothered or care to know about Bush’s relentless lies, mendacity and mass propaganda to obfuscate and distort Saddam’s records to justify the illegal invasion and criminal occupation of Iraq. Bush’s logic is simple and understandable. Even when he reluctantly concedes that there were no weapons of mass destruction, Bush always affirms that the removal of Saddam is worth it because he was “an evil and brutal dictator; and that the world is better without him”. Bush affirms this position always as a matter of truism that needs no proof. We are supposed to believe him and seek no proof or evidence because God, the president said so. Fortunately for Bush, his ardent followers and even some opposition believe Bush that Saddam was a thorough evil and that the world is better without him. The last regime that had such opprobrium attached to was Hitler’s Nazism, yet the survivors of Nazi regime were accorded international trials at The Hague. Bush, on the other hand, organized a Kangaroo court through his Vichy government to try and hastily lynch and exterminate Saddam because they were scared of what he might reveal in a proper trial. Thus according to Slavoj Zizek: closer to the standard list of the bad guys, why was there little talk of delivering Saddam Hussein or, say, Manuel Noriega to The Hague? Why was the only trial against Mr. Noriega for drug trafficking, rather than for his murderous abuses as a dictator? Was it because he would have disclosed his past ties with the CIA?[3] Mr. Zizek Continued: In a similar way, Saddam Hussein’s regime was an abominable authoritarian state, guilty of many crimes, mostly toward its own people. However, one should note the strange but key fact that, when the United States representatives and the Iraqi prosecutors were enumerating his evil deeds, they systematically omitted what was undoubtedly his greatest crime in terms of human suffering and of violating international justice: his invasion of Iran. Why? Because the United States and the majority of foreign states were actively helping Iraq in this aggression. (Emphasis mine.)[4] The above information from Mr. Zizek is far more revealing than it initially appeared. Mr. Zizek was saying that from the conceptual phase of Saddam’s trial, that the Bush representatives and the Iraqi prosecutors did not include his greatest crimes, that they – “systematically omitted what was undoubtedly his greatest crime in terms of human suffering and of violating international justice: his invasion of Iran.” Yet, gassing of the Shiites and the Kurds, was the centerpiece of Saddam’s brutality, “against his own people” that Bush touted to confirm Saddam’s brutality and that he has WMD. To know that Bush never intended to try Saddam for the crime he had shouted and harped so much on is truly unbelievable and shocking. It confirms that Bush is a far bigger hoax than anyone can imagine. More importantly, it confirms that the accelerated, impromptu and hasty execution of Saddam Hussein was a done deal and long planned. Bush never intended to try Saddam for the crimes of “using WMD on his own people” because he was scared that Saddam might talk about the Reagan and Rumsfeld’s visit and deals with him during the Iraq-Iran war. Rumsfeld, as Special Envoy of President Reagan, visited and shook hands publicly with President Saddam Hussein on December 20, 1983.[5] This also means that the purported disappointment of White House and the US military in Iraq over the hasty execution of Saddam by “al-Maliki” is a ruse and fraud because they all had agreed earlier that Saddam would never be alive to face his gasification trials because of the ugly revelations that might occur. The other sinister aspect of the trial was the fact that they started with trying Saddam for the execution of the 182 members who had tried to assassinate him. Theoretically, that was the weakest of the charges against Saddam. I could never understand why Bush wanted to start with that charge because those charges were very puny. But it was the best that the Bush gang could muster since they could not charge him for the real thing. The charge from the assassination attempt is weak because Saddam was the President of Iraq. Punishment for assassinations or assassination attempts is death in any system that I know of including the US. The people were tried by the operating legal system at the time, found guilty and put to deaths according to their law. I am still to understand what Saddam Hussein had to do with that the President and Commander-in-Chief of Iraqi Armed Forces. Under the premise of their trials, conviction and execution of Saddam Hussein, why should Bush and his Cabinet not be arrested, tried, convicted and executed like Saddam and his Cabinet? I do not see any difference except that Bush has a more powerful army that was able to defeat and arrest Saddam. I hope I am wrong and I stand to be corrected. However, if I happen to be right, which I strongly suspect that I am, then we are not talking about right or wrong. We are simply talking about ‘might is right’ which is a throwback to primitive pre-1815 Concert of Europe that recognized the sovereignty of states – a principle that was reinforced by the United Nations Charter of 1945. Hence, Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations repeatedly declared Bush’s invasion of Iraq illegal. I will therefore, truly like to know and many others will also like to know the difference between Saddam’s position and Bush’s; and I hope that lawyers and other experts will help us our here. With the logic of Saddam’s brutal dictatorship as Bush’s only remaining rationale for Bush’s travesty and criminality in Iraq, why should anyone not expect Bush to also continue to lie, hype and fabricate facts about Saddam. I am amazed at the reaction of most Americans and others. What we have done is akin to asking and believing a bully’s reason for trouncing his victim. In regular life we would also insist on hearing the victim’s side of the story. But here, the only voice we hear and are contented with is the bully’s voice who understandably so thoroughly paints the victim as an evil that he has no case worth hearing. I submit that it is unnatural, unethical and uncivilized for human beings to be so completely partisan, biased and clouded to concede the bully the unfettered and unchallenged right to crush and rout his victim and to also totally accept the bully’s rationale for trouncing him. George W. Bush is the bully. At least, he is the bigger bully of the two – thanks to America’s massive military power. Therefore, in this climactic struggle between the Bushes and Saddam[6], Bush easily, thoroughly and physically trounced and eliminated Saddam; and then saturated the media with his version, which was largely false, fabricated and/or hyped. But the truth cannot be hidden permanently, No matter how hard Bush and his Vichy Iraqi government clamp down on comparative truths, glimmers of prewar situation will still show up. Thus, according to Michael Luo: Along with its many other desperate problems, Iraq is in the midst of a housing crisis that is worsening by the day. It began right after the toppling of Saddam Hussein, when many landlords took advantage of the removal of his economic controls and raised rents substantially, forcing out thousands of families who took shelter in abandoned government buildings and military bases. As the chaos in Iraq grew and the ranks of the jobless swelled, even more Iraqis migrated to squalid squatter encampments. Still others constructed crude shantytowns on empty plots where conditions were even worse. Now, after more than 10 months of brutal sectarian reprisals, many more Iraqis have fled their neighborhoods, only to wind up often in places that are just as wretched in other ways. While 1.8 million Iraqis are living outside the country, 1.6 million more have been displaced within Iraq since the war began. Since February, about 50,000 per month have moved within the country.[7] He continued: Shelter is their most pressing need, aid organizations say. Some have been able to occupy homes left by members of the opposing sect or group; others have not been so fortunate. The longer the violence persists, the more Iraqis are running out of money and options. Shatha Talib, 30, her husband and five children, are among about a thousand struggling Iraqi families that have taken up residence in the bombed-out remains of the former Iraqi Air Defense headquarters and air force club in the center of Baghdad. “Nobody should live in such a place,” she said. “But we don’t have any other option.”[8] Not only in housing, but in the provision of other qualities of life, the conditions of Iraqis have plummeted since Bush’s invasion. But he provided them security, massive modern infrastructure for the system. Under Saddam, Iraqis were well fed. The Iraqis had the best educational system in the region. It was also free even to medical and law schools. Fuel and rations were cheap and highly subsidized by the government. The Saddam Hussein Iraq was secular because of the Baath Party so Iraqi women under Saddam were free to pursue any profession. In fact Iraqi women under Saddam were less encumbered than American women. All the material freedom and facilities that Iraqis enjoyed under Saddam are now gone and have become faint memories and fairy tales under the insurgent-sectarian chaotic realities of the Bush-Maliki regime. My heart goes out to the Iraqis because no country should ever be subjected to the kind of brutality, destruction, ruin and shame that Bush and the American forces have wrought on them for absolutely no cause at all except that we have a bunch of ego-driven, power-hungry maniacs who illegally ceased our White House and then used our enormous military power to terrorize, destroy and try to dominate the world. This is why I think that our first and most urgent task now is to throw away the illegal occupiers and “pretenders to the throne” at the White House and bring our troops home; and then talk about our enormous compensation to the Iraqis. [1] Read these three books to understand the depth of the illegalities involved in hoisting Bush on us: Greg Palast, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy (London: Pluto Press, 2002); Vincent Bugliosi, The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined Our Constitution and Chose Our President (New York: Nation Books, 2001); Alan M. Dershowitz, Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001) [2] Ray Ekpu, Newswatch, August 8, 1994 p. 28 [3] Slavoj Zizek, “Denying the Facts, Finding the Truth.” New York Times. January 5, 2007. [4] Ibid. [5] Joyce Battle, “Iraq: Declassified Document of U.S Support for Hussein.” Washington Post. February 27, 2003. [6] Peter Baker, “Conflicts Shaped Two Presidencies: U.S., Iraq Continue to Experience After effects of Their Confrontations,” , Washington Post, Sunday, December 31, 2006; A21 [7] Michael Luo, “Crisis in Housing Adds to Miseries of Iraq Mayhem,” New York Times December 29, 2006 [8] Ibid.
[1] General Smedley Butler, War is a Racket (New York: Round Table Press, 1935),
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Carl von Clausewitz, On War (London: Penguin Books, 1982)
[6] Butler, Op. Cit.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Senator Jim Webb (Democrat, Virginia), his son is an officer in Iraq. He made news when he told Bush that all he wanted was to bring his son and his friends back from Iraq.
[9] Read, Corky Siemaszko, “W for War but Eager to Avoid it, Prof .Recalls.” Daily News. Friday, September 10, 2004
[10] Ibid.
Michael Wines and New York Times on Robert Mugabe: An Analysis
Michael Wines and New York Times on Robert Mugabe’s Election Victory: My Comments and Analysis
Michael Wines, New York Times and the West on Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwean Elections Victory of March 31, 2005: A Typical Example of Western Arrogance, Ignorance, Hypocrisy and Racism!
© Professor Amechi Okolo Ph.D, New York, April, 2005
Your article on President Mugube’s election victory in Zimbabwe published in New York Times, Sunday, April 10, 2005 is typical of your senseless, racist, brainless and phobic attack on a respected African leader. The article titled, “Selective Justice: Tough on Togo, Letting Zimbabwe Slide,” exposes your ignorance, bias, hypocrisy and western arrogance.
You are certainly not writing like an objective journalist but as a paid propagandist in the service of his Anglo-American masters like Armstrong Williams who was posing as a journalist while being paid by the Bush administration to propagate their views. Now I wonder who has contracted you to write against Robert Mugabe and how much you are paid. Anybody who saw Ian Smith’s UDI Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), as you did, as “southern Africa’s crown jewel” is a disgrace and an intellectual dinosaur, and is not fit for the twenty-first century. He is either a total ignoramus or a congenital irredeemable racist. You must be ashamed for making such a comparison. It reminded me of how Trent Lott regretted the end of official/legal segregation in America for which America forced him to resign his Senate leadership. How could a society ruled and dominated by a a very small white minority class be called a “crown jewel” by you or anybody? How old are you? To call Ian Smith’s apartheid South Africa, “southern Africa’s crown jewel” is not only fundamentally ignorant and racist, but a major insult to Africa and the world. It is like calling Hitler’s Germany, “a crown jewel of Europe.” You would be lynched in Germany not just by the Jews but by many decent Germans and others. Or would you call the slave America or the legally segregationist America, “the crown jewel of the Americas” without outbursts of wide protestations from many quarters. Therefore, it is only in Africa that you could have the impetus and the audacity to call one of its most repressive and oppressive period, “a crown jewel.” Do you not know anything about apartheid and South Africa? Please, go to your history books and read up or refresh yourself about Apartheid South Africa before you will again, dare call that system a , “crown jewel.” In any sane system, you will be made to apologize to Zimbabweans for calling their most oppressive system a “crown jewel.” It is like calling the American slave epoch – the “crown jewel” of America. This is a period the American power structure is doing everything to forget while the native-Americans cannot forget the pogrom and the savagery of the era and the blacks are traumatized by their slavery and dehumanization. So for anyone to call that epoch our “crown jewel” is simply callous, heartless and supreme idiocy. The statement is therefore, not just an insult to Africans and blacks but to the spirit of the twenty-first century. I am surprised and ashamed that New York Times would openly let you espouse such horrible racist position in this day and age.
Furthermore, you are so dedicated to democracy and so offended by stolen elections, yet you said or wrote nothing about the brazen electoral thefts in the United States in 2000 and 2004. Or you were completely comfortable with the thousands of African-American votes that were stolen, denied or expunged in Florida in 2000 or in Ohio in 2004. If you are interested in free and fair elections which are noble and commendable, you must start with your backyard in the United States where Bush turned our electoral processes into laughing stocks. There were protests, Congressional hearings and Jimmy Carter/James Baker Commission to study the elections, so the least an honest journalist could do was acknowledge those imperfections in America’s electoral processes instead of pontificating like an angel from heaven. Or do you mean to tell me that Americans do not deserve clean, free and fair elections or that you love Zimbabweans more than you love Americans. Make no mistake about it. I love and cherish free and fair elections and yearn for it, but I believe that like charity, criticism must start at home. So if you cannot critique the massive American electoral frauds and shenanigans that produced W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 and/or too chicken or compromised to do so publicly, you must keep your mouth shut because no one should take you serious until you start being serious and truthful with yourself..
I cannot authenticate the frauds you mentioned in Zimbabwe, but most of them like voter intimidation, scorching of voter lists, lack of voting machines in critical “opponents” areas, long voting hours, insecure vote counting, partisan voting officials and many others sound like Florida and Ohio in 2000 and 2004. So maybe if Mugabe did those things, he learnt them from W. Bush which means that the first place you should start is right here in the United States.
Furthermore, you denounced the African Union for calling the Zimbabwean election, “free and fair;” and for commending, “Zimbabwe's government for making efforts towards creating an even playing field." You stated that, “Nonpartisan election monitors and Western nations called the election grievously flawed.” This is interesting because you defined “Nonpartisan election monitors” essentially as those who agree with you and your western maters and benefactors. Hence, my question to you is who monitored W. Bush’s ‘victories’ in 2000 and 2004? Can you give us their names and their statements? Do you know that international observers were not allowed to observe George Bush’s 2000 “election” and 2004 re-election” – and they were all okay for Anglo-American apologists and megaphones like you. Hence, it was people like you, the Pharisees of biblical epoch that Jesus raved against and called, “thou fools, thou hypocrites!” for their self-righteous and hypocritical ways of outward glowing, radiant and lustrous professions while actually rotten beneath. The truth is that writers like you are intellectual hit men who are paid to sing and propagate their western masters’ voices.
If you do not know, let me remind you again, Mugabe is popular in Zimbabwe and Africa because he wrestled power from a horrible apartheid racist regime of Ian Smith where minority whites held sway over blacks and controlled over ninety percent of arable land. In Southern Rhodesia, as it was then called, 217,000 whites ruled and firmly controlled the lives of four million blacks in an apartheid system that allowed no political, social and economic rights for the majority blacks. In other words, a system where the whites – a statistically insignificant number in the society (.054) firmly controlled the political, economic and military powers of Southern Rhodesia is the “crown jewel” of Africa for Michael Wines and his likes. The regime collapsed after long determined guerrilla warfare waged by Mugabe and others. Zimbabweans, Africans and progressives worldwide love Robert Mugabe because of his historic and heroic fights against apartheid Southern Rhodesia. The Lancaster House Agreement of 1979 paved the way for an election based on universal suffrage which was supervised by the British Governor in March 1980. Robert Mugabe won the election and became the Prime Minister and later President of Zimbabwe. A core part of the Lancaster House Agreement was that land would be redistributed to the blacks after compensation to be paid by Britain, the colonial master.
The problem Mugabe now has with the west and with the western megaphones is that Mugabe, who is now in his eighties, wants to accomplish his life goal by redistributing the land before he goes away. Equitable redistribution of land has been at the core of the liberation struggle in Zimbabwe, so without it, the whole guerilla struggles to destroy apartheid in Southern Rhodesia would have been pointless. Here is what Mugabe said in a recent interview to mark the twenty-second year anniversary of Zimbabwe’s independence as recorded by Baffour Ankomah of African Magazine, May 2002[1]:
Baffour:Was land a core issue even then? Mugabe:Land was an issue. It has always been an issue. The Africans were always complaining about the land, about how they had been pushed into little portions of the country called Native Reserves for a start, and later on they were called Communal Areas. Yes, that was a very deep-seated grievance - land shortage. And the fact that the whites occupied the best of the land in the country, the more fertile areas, and spacious areas for that matter, while the Africans were hurdled together, packed like sardines in small areas. And this is why when you travel, you have areas that were cleared of the African people and made spacious in order for them to become vast estates for white farmers who then prided themselves of owning vast estates in a country where the majority of the people were hurdled together. Baffour:In today's terms, they would call it ethnic cleansing... Mugabe:...Well, they would call it ethnic cleansing naturally, and this is it - they used race, colour - and here of course it was not so much of ethnicity as colour. Baffour:Colour cleansing, not ethnic cleansing? Mugabe:Colour cleansing yes, but sometimes the two go together - colour cleansing and ethnic cleansing. Here in Africa, the two went together.
I personally feel and advocated then that the land should be distributed in 1980 right after his election. As the richest and most powerful “free” African country then, Nigeria played the leading role in the liberation struggles of southern African states in the 1980s. Nigeria chaired the Organization of African Unity (OAU) liberation committee and invested lots of human, material and psychological resources in southern African liberation struggles. I remember arguing on Nigeria’s Current Affairs television programs in the 1980s that Mugabe should distribute the land then immediately. Now, I believe he has waited too long before attempting to redistribute the land. He should have done that twenty-five years ago, but I imagine that he was waiting to be a “nice” man, but after twenty-five years and he is getting old, it has to be done at any cost because it is the right thing to do. Remember, justice delayed is justice denied. The truth is that the west would not have been happy with him anytime he distributed the land whether twenty-five years ago or now. They would always find enough reasons to castigate and vilify him because the west never really wanted the land to be redistributed. Michael Wines and other western powers, their megaphones and cohorts must then answer whether it is fair to let the minority whites continue to control over ninety percent of arable land in Zimbabwe or to redistribute the land; and whether Mugabe did not show enough restraint by waiting for twenty-five years. Or how long would they want him to wait? Or may be they do not want the land redistribution at all.
The truth is that in any occupied state like in the occupied France during the Second World War or the occupied Iraq since 2003 by the American invaders or the occupied apartheid Rhodesia, the occupying forces always found collaborators and saboteurs to betray their peoples and to champion the occupiers’ interests and wishes. The Vichy regime in France collaborated with the German occupiers of France during the Second World War; the various interim governments of Iraq since the American invasion of March 2003 are Iraqi collaborators with the American invaders and occupiers of Iraq[2]. In 1979, Bishop Musorewa, a Zimbabwean, was invented by the west to obstruct Zimbabwean push and struggles for real independence during the earlier Mugabe phenomenal surge but Zimbabweans rejected him then at the polls and voted massively for Mugabe. The point is that Morgan Tsvangirai and his MDC must be seen as the present day Bishop Musorewa and his UANC who was propped up for us as very popular then. So we have seen the likes of Tsvangirai before. It is amazing that the west is never tired or ashamed of repeating or inventing similar tricks time and again.
The Mugabe victory in the 2005 election must therefore, be seen within the historical context of Zimbabwe. The fundamental socio-political problem in Zimbabwe now, as it was then, is the redistribution of the land grabbed by the white minority during the British colonial occupation of Zimbabwe. The process through which the whites acquired the best land then was ethnic and/or color cleansing then, and therefore, a crime against humanity. It is also important to emphasize that the whole of Africa was intimately involved in Zimbabwean liberation struggles. Soviet Union, China, Cuba and other progressive forces worldwide contributed massively to Zimbabwean liberation. Hence, Africans and worldwide progressive forces have inherent positive attachment to Zimbabwe and Robert Mugabe who was the leading guerilla fighter for his peoples’ independence along with legendary Joshua Nkomoh. He later transformed into a political leader in the tradition of Golda Meir, Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamu, Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon – all former guerrilla/liberation/resistance/insurgent/partisan/military leaders of their people who also later transformed into respected political leaderships. So Michael Wines, the western leaders and their other megaphones like Nicholas Kristof must understand the Zimbabwean and African sensibilities about Zimbabwe. Robert Mugabe represented to us the successful manly Zimbabwean/African resistance and defeat of that most horrible western colonial system of total domination and control in Africa called apartheid; and redistributing the land will be the final and ultimate result of the successful armed struggle to liberate Zimbabwe for which Zimbabweans, Africans, African-Americans and progressive forces worldwide gave their all in the 1960s and 1970s. Robert Mugabe and Late Joshua Nkomo got their training and inspiration from Presidents Kwame Nkrumah and Sekou Toure of the Ghana-Guinea Confab. Also Stokely Carmichael, the great Pan-Africanist and many other African-Americans contributed immensely towards Zimbabwean independence. Therefore, Morgan Tsvangirai, President of the Movement for Change (MDC), the darling of the west cannot gain much traction in Zimbabwe now because he is seen as the Bishop Musorewa of the 1970s who was soundly rejected by the people as not authentic – as being stooges and not representing them.
I am not here to defend Mugabe’s governance, but for Tsvangirai to have serious tractions in his challenge of Mugabe, he must clearly, openly and vigorously support the immediate redistribution of the land in Zimbabwe which will put him on the level plane with Mugabe so that Zimbabweans and Africans will be able to hear and judge him fairly. Right now, he is mainly seen by most Zimbabweans and Africans as just another Bishop Musorewa of the 1970s -- another western puppet who must be shunned; and western megaphones like Michael Wines, Nichol Kristof, others and their masters – as just ignorant, racist, arrogant and hypocritical, and therefore, worthless.
[1] Read, African Magazine, May 2002[1]:
[2] Dexter Filkins, “Demonstrators in Iraq Demand That U.S. Leave,” New York Times (April 10, 2005), p.1
Michael Wines, New York Times and the West on Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwean Elections Victory of March 31, 2005: A Typical Example of Western Arrogance, Ignorance, Hypocrisy and Racism!
© Professor Amechi Okolo Ph.D, New York, April, 2005
Your article on President Mugube’s election victory in Zimbabwe published in New York Times, Sunday, April 10, 2005 is typical of your senseless, racist, brainless and phobic attack on a respected African leader. The article titled, “Selective Justice: Tough on Togo, Letting Zimbabwe Slide,” exposes your ignorance, bias, hypocrisy and western arrogance.
You are certainly not writing like an objective journalist but as a paid propagandist in the service of his Anglo-American masters like Armstrong Williams who was posing as a journalist while being paid by the Bush administration to propagate their views. Now I wonder who has contracted you to write against Robert Mugabe and how much you are paid. Anybody who saw Ian Smith’s UDI Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), as you did, as “southern Africa’s crown jewel” is a disgrace and an intellectual dinosaur, and is not fit for the twenty-first century. He is either a total ignoramus or a congenital irredeemable racist. You must be ashamed for making such a comparison. It reminded me of how Trent Lott regretted the end of official/legal segregation in America for which America forced him to resign his Senate leadership. How could a society ruled and dominated by a a very small white minority class be called a “crown jewel” by you or anybody? How old are you? To call Ian Smith’s apartheid South Africa, “southern Africa’s crown jewel” is not only fundamentally ignorant and racist, but a major insult to Africa and the world. It is like calling Hitler’s Germany, “a crown jewel of Europe.” You would be lynched in Germany not just by the Jews but by many decent Germans and others. Or would you call the slave America or the legally segregationist America, “the crown jewel of the Americas” without outbursts of wide protestations from many quarters. Therefore, it is only in Africa that you could have the impetus and the audacity to call one of its most repressive and oppressive period, “a crown jewel.” Do you not know anything about apartheid and South Africa? Please, go to your history books and read up or refresh yourself about Apartheid South Africa before you will again, dare call that system a , “crown jewel.” In any sane system, you will be made to apologize to Zimbabweans for calling their most oppressive system a “crown jewel.” It is like calling the American slave epoch – the “crown jewel” of America. This is a period the American power structure is doing everything to forget while the native-Americans cannot forget the pogrom and the savagery of the era and the blacks are traumatized by their slavery and dehumanization. So for anyone to call that epoch our “crown jewel” is simply callous, heartless and supreme idiocy. The statement is therefore, not just an insult to Africans and blacks but to the spirit of the twenty-first century. I am surprised and ashamed that New York Times would openly let you espouse such horrible racist position in this day and age.
Furthermore, you are so dedicated to democracy and so offended by stolen elections, yet you said or wrote nothing about the brazen electoral thefts in the United States in 2000 and 2004. Or you were completely comfortable with the thousands of African-American votes that were stolen, denied or expunged in Florida in 2000 or in Ohio in 2004. If you are interested in free and fair elections which are noble and commendable, you must start with your backyard in the United States where Bush turned our electoral processes into laughing stocks. There were protests, Congressional hearings and Jimmy Carter/James Baker Commission to study the elections, so the least an honest journalist could do was acknowledge those imperfections in America’s electoral processes instead of pontificating like an angel from heaven. Or do you mean to tell me that Americans do not deserve clean, free and fair elections or that you love Zimbabweans more than you love Americans. Make no mistake about it. I love and cherish free and fair elections and yearn for it, but I believe that like charity, criticism must start at home. So if you cannot critique the massive American electoral frauds and shenanigans that produced W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 and/or too chicken or compromised to do so publicly, you must keep your mouth shut because no one should take you serious until you start being serious and truthful with yourself..
I cannot authenticate the frauds you mentioned in Zimbabwe, but most of them like voter intimidation, scorching of voter lists, lack of voting machines in critical “opponents” areas, long voting hours, insecure vote counting, partisan voting officials and many others sound like Florida and Ohio in 2000 and 2004. So maybe if Mugabe did those things, he learnt them from W. Bush which means that the first place you should start is right here in the United States.
Furthermore, you denounced the African Union for calling the Zimbabwean election, “free and fair;” and for commending, “Zimbabwe's government for making efforts towards creating an even playing field." You stated that, “Nonpartisan election monitors and Western nations called the election grievously flawed.” This is interesting because you defined “Nonpartisan election monitors” essentially as those who agree with you and your western maters and benefactors. Hence, my question to you is who monitored W. Bush’s ‘victories’ in 2000 and 2004? Can you give us their names and their statements? Do you know that international observers were not allowed to observe George Bush’s 2000 “election” and 2004 re-election” – and they were all okay for Anglo-American apologists and megaphones like you. Hence, it was people like you, the Pharisees of biblical epoch that Jesus raved against and called, “thou fools, thou hypocrites!” for their self-righteous and hypocritical ways of outward glowing, radiant and lustrous professions while actually rotten beneath. The truth is that writers like you are intellectual hit men who are paid to sing and propagate their western masters’ voices.
If you do not know, let me remind you again, Mugabe is popular in Zimbabwe and Africa because he wrestled power from a horrible apartheid racist regime of Ian Smith where minority whites held sway over blacks and controlled over ninety percent of arable land. In Southern Rhodesia, as it was then called, 217,000 whites ruled and firmly controlled the lives of four million blacks in an apartheid system that allowed no political, social and economic rights for the majority blacks. In other words, a system where the whites – a statistically insignificant number in the society (.054) firmly controlled the political, economic and military powers of Southern Rhodesia is the “crown jewel” of Africa for Michael Wines and his likes. The regime collapsed after long determined guerrilla warfare waged by Mugabe and others. Zimbabweans, Africans and progressives worldwide love Robert Mugabe because of his historic and heroic fights against apartheid Southern Rhodesia. The Lancaster House Agreement of 1979 paved the way for an election based on universal suffrage which was supervised by the British Governor in March 1980. Robert Mugabe won the election and became the Prime Minister and later President of Zimbabwe. A core part of the Lancaster House Agreement was that land would be redistributed to the blacks after compensation to be paid by Britain, the colonial master.
The problem Mugabe now has with the west and with the western megaphones is that Mugabe, who is now in his eighties, wants to accomplish his life goal by redistributing the land before he goes away. Equitable redistribution of land has been at the core of the liberation struggle in Zimbabwe, so without it, the whole guerilla struggles to destroy apartheid in Southern Rhodesia would have been pointless. Here is what Mugabe said in a recent interview to mark the twenty-second year anniversary of Zimbabwe’s independence as recorded by Baffour Ankomah of African Magazine, May 2002[1]:
Baffour:Was land a core issue even then? Mugabe:Land was an issue. It has always been an issue. The Africans were always complaining about the land, about how they had been pushed into little portions of the country called Native Reserves for a start, and later on they were called Communal Areas. Yes, that was a very deep-seated grievance - land shortage. And the fact that the whites occupied the best of the land in the country, the more fertile areas, and spacious areas for that matter, while the Africans were hurdled together, packed like sardines in small areas. And this is why when you travel, you have areas that were cleared of the African people and made spacious in order for them to become vast estates for white farmers who then prided themselves of owning vast estates in a country where the majority of the people were hurdled together. Baffour:In today's terms, they would call it ethnic cleansing... Mugabe:...Well, they would call it ethnic cleansing naturally, and this is it - they used race, colour - and here of course it was not so much of ethnicity as colour. Baffour:Colour cleansing, not ethnic cleansing? Mugabe:Colour cleansing yes, but sometimes the two go together - colour cleansing and ethnic cleansing. Here in Africa, the two went together.
I personally feel and advocated then that the land should be distributed in 1980 right after his election. As the richest and most powerful “free” African country then, Nigeria played the leading role in the liberation struggles of southern African states in the 1980s. Nigeria chaired the Organization of African Unity (OAU) liberation committee and invested lots of human, material and psychological resources in southern African liberation struggles. I remember arguing on Nigeria’s Current Affairs television programs in the 1980s that Mugabe should distribute the land then immediately. Now, I believe he has waited too long before attempting to redistribute the land. He should have done that twenty-five years ago, but I imagine that he was waiting to be a “nice” man, but after twenty-five years and he is getting old, it has to be done at any cost because it is the right thing to do. Remember, justice delayed is justice denied. The truth is that the west would not have been happy with him anytime he distributed the land whether twenty-five years ago or now. They would always find enough reasons to castigate and vilify him because the west never really wanted the land to be redistributed. Michael Wines and other western powers, their megaphones and cohorts must then answer whether it is fair to let the minority whites continue to control over ninety percent of arable land in Zimbabwe or to redistribute the land; and whether Mugabe did not show enough restraint by waiting for twenty-five years. Or how long would they want him to wait? Or may be they do not want the land redistribution at all.
The truth is that in any occupied state like in the occupied France during the Second World War or the occupied Iraq since 2003 by the American invaders or the occupied apartheid Rhodesia, the occupying forces always found collaborators and saboteurs to betray their peoples and to champion the occupiers’ interests and wishes. The Vichy regime in France collaborated with the German occupiers of France during the Second World War; the various interim governments of Iraq since the American invasion of March 2003 are Iraqi collaborators with the American invaders and occupiers of Iraq[2]. In 1979, Bishop Musorewa, a Zimbabwean, was invented by the west to obstruct Zimbabwean push and struggles for real independence during the earlier Mugabe phenomenal surge but Zimbabweans rejected him then at the polls and voted massively for Mugabe. The point is that Morgan Tsvangirai and his MDC must be seen as the present day Bishop Musorewa and his UANC who was propped up for us as very popular then. So we have seen the likes of Tsvangirai before. It is amazing that the west is never tired or ashamed of repeating or inventing similar tricks time and again.
The Mugabe victory in the 2005 election must therefore, be seen within the historical context of Zimbabwe. The fundamental socio-political problem in Zimbabwe now, as it was then, is the redistribution of the land grabbed by the white minority during the British colonial occupation of Zimbabwe. The process through which the whites acquired the best land then was ethnic and/or color cleansing then, and therefore, a crime against humanity. It is also important to emphasize that the whole of Africa was intimately involved in Zimbabwean liberation struggles. Soviet Union, China, Cuba and other progressive forces worldwide contributed massively to Zimbabwean liberation. Hence, Africans and worldwide progressive forces have inherent positive attachment to Zimbabwe and Robert Mugabe who was the leading guerilla fighter for his peoples’ independence along with legendary Joshua Nkomoh. He later transformed into a political leader in the tradition of Golda Meir, Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamu, Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon – all former guerrilla/liberation/resistance/insurgent/partisan/military leaders of their people who also later transformed into respected political leaderships. So Michael Wines, the western leaders and their other megaphones like Nicholas Kristof must understand the Zimbabwean and African sensibilities about Zimbabwe. Robert Mugabe represented to us the successful manly Zimbabwean/African resistance and defeat of that most horrible western colonial system of total domination and control in Africa called apartheid; and redistributing the land will be the final and ultimate result of the successful armed struggle to liberate Zimbabwe for which Zimbabweans, Africans, African-Americans and progressive forces worldwide gave their all in the 1960s and 1970s. Robert Mugabe and Late Joshua Nkomo got their training and inspiration from Presidents Kwame Nkrumah and Sekou Toure of the Ghana-Guinea Confab. Also Stokely Carmichael, the great Pan-Africanist and many other African-Americans contributed immensely towards Zimbabwean independence. Therefore, Morgan Tsvangirai, President of the Movement for Change (MDC), the darling of the west cannot gain much traction in Zimbabwe now because he is seen as the Bishop Musorewa of the 1970s who was soundly rejected by the people as not authentic – as being stooges and not representing them.
I am not here to defend Mugabe’s governance, but for Tsvangirai to have serious tractions in his challenge of Mugabe, he must clearly, openly and vigorously support the immediate redistribution of the land in Zimbabwe which will put him on the level plane with Mugabe so that Zimbabweans and Africans will be able to hear and judge him fairly. Right now, he is mainly seen by most Zimbabweans and Africans as just another Bishop Musorewa of the 1970s -- another western puppet who must be shunned; and western megaphones like Michael Wines, Nichol Kristof, others and their masters – as just ignorant, racist, arrogant and hypocritical, and therefore, worthless.
[1] Read, African Magazine, May 2002[1]:
[2] Dexter Filkins, “Demonstrators in Iraq Demand That U.S. Leave,” New York Times (April 10, 2005), p.1
Some Thoughts On the Trial of Michael Jackson
Some Thoughts and Suggestions on Closing Statement for the Child Molestation Trial of Michael Jackson
From: © Professor Amechi Okolo.
To: Thomas Mesereau, Michael Jackson’s Defense Attorney
May 31, 2005
I write this to express my full support for Michael Jackson and to wish him God’s protection in this horrible ordeal. I know that it must have been a nightmare for him to go through this trial and I pray for God’s strength and guidance through this most difficult period in his most remarkable life. I am therefore writing this to register my full support for him at this time when he needs the comfort and encouragement of all his supporters, admirers and fans. I write this because I believe that this trial is unfair, contrived and racist, and I believe that God will see him exonerated in the not distant future. You have conducted this trial most ably and I also pray for you.
Now that the trial is concluded and you are preparing for your closing statements, I write this to make some suggestions which I hope might help to clinch the victory. I also feel that it is, perhaps timely for me to put down my thoughts, feelings and observations about Michael on paper at this most difficult period of his life. Let me just confess to you that the day Michael Jackson is pronounced “not guilty” by the jury will be one of the happiest days in my life because it will be one more affirmation of justice which the world desperately needs at this most excruciating epoch. I do not know Michael Jackson personally, and I have never met him in person, but I have followed his career ever since I came to this country in 1971 and enrolled at Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana; and I am convinced and can avow that he is the greatest entertainer who has ever worked the face of this earth. I have watched him for entertainment purposes and studied him as an academician and a social scientist and I can say with all seriousness that he is a genius and a rare gem. Moreover, besides being clearly the greatest entertainer the world has ever known, nobody even comes closer to taking his place whenever he physically leaves the scene.
The major problem America has with Michael Jackson is his race – the fact that he is black, exceptionally successful and politically active. America being a fundamentally racist system is ever mortified by the prospects of a black or colored being the “greatest” in any positive life endeavor. More importantly, the uniqueness of Michael is that he achieved his phenomenal and unprecedented rise not just without the props and support of the American mass media but in spite of their very hostile and historically openly antagonistic representation. The fact is that America’s media have rarely presented Michael in a positive way. They usually use the most negative and insinuating words to refer to or describe him. For example, the standard media reference to him in America is, “Michael Jackson, the self-styled King of Pop.” This is even supposed to be a generous presentation of him. Now compare this to their usual favorable reference to Elvis as, “the King.” Hence, according to America’s media, while Michael is self-styled and self-imposing – an imposter; Elvis was or is people-crowned, God-ordained and God-anointed. The simple question is, can anyone, please tell when and who crowned Elvis the king or when Michael crowned himself the king? This is racism par excellence. The truth is that Michael never crowned himself a king nor did anyone ever crown Elvis a king. In truth, US does not even have royalty. The title, king is, therefore simply media creation. They had evaluated the two giant entertainers as worthy of the exalted title and hence started using the title “king” to distinguish them from others. But the fundamental racism of the system forced them to taint Michael’s with the phrase, “self-styled” so that he will not be on par with Elvis’. With time most Americans accepted and/or even began to enjoy the distinction without caring and/or understanding its underlying racist implications. This is just a tip of the racism and negative press reporting about Michael that saturates America’s media as national entertainment.
So, for America’s power-establishment, Michael must be brought down as quickly and as violently as possible because he has gone against America’s fundamental grain by climbing and remaining at the apex of not just America but global entertainers – a status that in America is left only for the whites. Hence, Michael’s “sins” are multiple. He is a black and a male in America. He achieved phenomenal successes in the system instead of being in jail as many of his likes. Furthermore, to add more insults to already grievous offenses, Michael aggravated his sins when he achieved his status in spite of and in opposition to America’s mass media. Hence, this indictment and the trail is due to a confluence of conspiratorial negative and racist forces that have historically felt offended by Michael’s “recalcitrance” due to his uncompromising march to the acme of global entertainment in spite of them. Tom Sneddon, the District Attorney, is therefore simply the tool for implementing this racist policy because of Neverland’s physical location in his area of jurisdiction. So while Tom Sneddon is the point man in the efforts to pull Michael down, the conspiracy is clearly far larger than one person. It is systemic and institutional. Michael Jackson’s problems with America, and particularly this child molestation indictment and trial must therefore be seen and studied as part of institutional racism that we study and teach as academicians and social science professors in universities and colleges across the nation.
Thus, the circumstances of this trial need to be recast and rehearsed for records and for memory. This trial has shown that Michael Jackson is clearly innocent of the many charges against him. Long before Mr. Jackson was brought to this specific trial, the American media has persistently created and painted an image of Mr. Jackson as a weird pedophilia – a pathological devious nymph who lures children to Neverland to molest them and gratify his sexual pleasures. Yet, in spite of their very rigorous efforts, the prosecution has failed to prove any of their points. They have failed to prove that Mr. Jackson is a congenital, historical pedophilia. More importantly, they failed to prove that Mr. Jackson molested this particular child. Congenital means ingrained in someone’s character, firmly established as part of someone’s character, beliefs and behaviors – something that is genetic.
Yes, Mr. Jackson has at times acted in ways that may seem odd or weird to some people or even to members of the jury -- and me, but this trial is not about someone being weird, odd or strange, which is not a crime in our current system of jurisprudence. Michael is on trial here for specific child sexual molestation charges which the prosecution did not prove. And when the case is not proven, he must be acquitted. Members of the jury, please remember that when the prosecution fails to prove their case, you must acquit. This is our law and it applies with equal force to Mr. Jackson as well as to each and every one of us. Therefore, you cannot convict Mr. Jackson for his “weird” behaviors or for behaviors which America’s media and comedy houses gleefully dub him Wacko, Jacko to garner their largest attentions and loudest ovations. The American media from gossip centers to tabloids to mainstream all compete among themselves and pull their largest attentions, sell their largest number of circulations and draw their loudest ovations by their invention and mindless repeat of their various salacious “Wacko, Jacko” stories. I remember, long before this trial seeing Michael on television complain about how the media refers to him as “Wacko, Jacko”. I remember watching a man who was deeply hurt and injured as he complained and pleaded that they stop calling or referring to him as “Wacko, Jacko” He declared then, “I am not Wacko, I am not Jacko. I am Michael Jackson, and it hurts me to hear you refer to me that way.” The English dictionary defines Wacko as, “an offensive term that deliberately insults somebody regarded as unconventional, unpredictable or unusual.” The point is that the American media revels in its creation of unsavory, distasteful, unpalatable and immoral images of Mr. Jackson. They garner their audience and boost their sales with their constant negative portrayals of Mr. Jackson. Just as America media is addicted to sex, crime and violence as their most lucrative strategy to increase audience and boost sales irrespective of how it damages our youth as long as their bottom line is uplifted, the media is nonchalant about the feelings or personal damages to Mr. Jackson as long as their profits are going up. This is what I call prostitution journalism in America – i.e. journalism that only cares for profits and not positive service to society.
However, besides, some minor and rare complaints by Mr. Jackson, he has largely ignored the orchestrated and institutional media assaults against him and continues to live his legendary and phenomenal productive life with admirable dignity, calm and equanimity and as graciously and as selflessly as possible. Mr. Jackson is clearly unique among many in this day and age. There is no doubt or dispute about that. He has had nose change and other cosmetic surgeries which some people are not comfortable with. In fact some people feel deeply offended by his physical changes and transformations – and they are entitled to their views. The important question, however is whether his actions are criminal or evil intended and my answer is a resounding no. More importantly, the prosecution has failed to prove any evil or criminal acts or intention against Mr. Jackson in this case. In this age of celebrity attention-grabbing, Mr. Jackson has maintained his cool and distance from television and media glares. He does not attend talk-shows nor grant interviews like most other celebrities. Therefore, since he does not go to the media to promote himself or his projects as most others do, the media, talk-show hosts, talking-heads, tabloids, etc., trample and stampede upon themselves as they try and rush to cover him. I think that part of the intense media hatred of Mr. Jackson is their revulsion at being “forced” to cover him to increase their ratings instead of the other way round when celebrities actively seek the media to promote themselves and/or their projects. Mr. Jackson does not need America’s media for publicity as other celebrities. Rather it is America’s media that needs him for their own sustenance. This is irony but it is true. Mere mention of Michael Jackson or the hint that he will be at or participate in any event guarantees overflowing audience and high television rating and superlative dollar values for the television station and the papers. Nobody has that kind of magnetism or crowd draw-power as Michael has. Most people would watch or read anything about Michael whether they like him, are his fans or not – and for a black that could generate intense inner hatred and jealousy from the media, the racist system and some public.
Michael Jackson is the single most recognizable living face and name on the earth today. From Africa to Latin America to Asia, India, China, Japan, Russia, to Europe –France, Germany, United Kingdom. From east to west United States, Canada – in fact, in all corners of the globe – in all the continents of the globe, Michael is known, recognized, loved and adored. This is a phenomenal and unprecedented achievement that has never happened before. No body in recorded history has ever achieved this kind of global fame, let alone in the person’s lifetime – and Michael did that without the help of officialdom and in spite of institutional, sustained, negative media coverage about him.
For example, the media coverage of the trial is both a circus and a testimony to the national and global interests and impacts of Michael Jackson. Apart from the throngs of media reporters that are stationed around the courthouse, the makeup of enthusiastic and chanting Michael Jackson fans that crowd the trial venue every day waiting to catch a glimpse and, perhaps a wave from their idol as he daily comes and leaves the court with their various placards that proclaim his innocence is fascinating, indicative and informative. It is not just their large and their swelling numbers that must be heartwarming to Mr. Jackson and his loved ones, or the various encouraging, reassuring and confirming messages of their placards, but the racial, ethnic, national, age and gender mix of the fans and their dedication to the man. Nobody has or has had the kind of fans that Michael has – not in numbers, not in dedication and certainly not in mix and diversity. Michael is thus, the first and only celebrity who truly transcends race and ethnicity. He breaches the gap and the great divide between black, white, Asians, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, etc in morphology, attitude and behavior. Thus his surgical transformations could be understood as parts of his eternal strive towards global unity and oneness just as he verbalized in his hit song, “I don’t care if you are black or white” and also mechanically/artistically performed.
One of the most interesting things about Michael is the world’s very enthusiastic embrace of his uniracial morphological and behavioral transformations. Thus he has very huge and highly dedicated fans from all races and all nationalities. People just deal with him as one huge phenomenon – not as black or any particular race. Even though Michael was born black and has done some major cosmetic surgeries that may look to some that he is trying to deny or hide his blackness. Yet blacks are mostly not offended by his looks while most whites and other races do not care because his fans are only interested in his talents, actions and behaviors. Hence his fans at the trial represent true mosaic of humanity. While Michael knows that people can be racist as he once accused Matola, the Sony boss, he is just deeply interested in people. Michael just loves people of all races, and thank God, they love him back with equal zeal – and that is great healthy news – for people of all races, irrespective of age and gender to agree on one thing. Hence, in this respect, Michael has done more to advance the course of human unity and happiness more than any single living human being today.
Yet, while Michael genuinely loves people of all races, gender and age, all children and especially the afflicted ones are his specialties. He has a special calling and affinity with them such that may actually be difficult for ordinary mortals like us to appreciate or even understand. My point is that while Michael understands that there are different races in the world, he thinks that such differences are unimportant and inconsequential, hence he actively operates to undermine such artificial differences to the enthusiastic and warmth embrace of the world as evidenced by the excitement, passion and sheer global enormity and dedication of his followers. It is, therefore important to understand that it is the same gene that made Michael to ignore the great racial divide, which many people think are very important and life-defining and to actively work to subvert and destroy it that conditioned him not to recognize the age divide which many also think are very important, fixed and life-defining. Thus, just as Michael rigorously refuses to be pigeonholed in looks, action or behavior as “black or white” as regular folks, he has also rigorously refused to let age limit his choice of friends as most people do. Thus Michael has many personal friends of all ages and races. Hence, among his known very close friends are Liz Taylor, a much older white lady and Diana Ross, a much older black lady. The point is that Michael has always had friends that are outside our “acceptable” range because he does not want to be constrained by race, gender or age. So Michael’s surgical transformations, his behaviors and his friendships with much older women and much younger boys can all be explained as his historical efforts not to explode out of accepted orthodoxy. They have nothing to do with sexual orientation or preferences but just his understanding of a world that should not be defined or constrained by race, gender or age.
On this, I need to add that it was Lisa Marie Presely, the ex-wife of Michael Jackson who came close to satisfactorily explaining his many cosmetic surgeries during the rare interview they gave during their marriage. The reporters kept asking their usual many questions about Michael’s cosmetic surgeries to which he actually had no satisfactory response until his wife cut in and said, “Look Michael is an artist. He creates and recreates many things in his own way. His surgery is also a way of creating, recreating or expressing himself.” Lisa’s response was the most intelligent explanation I ever heard from Michael or anyone else about his obvious cosmetic transformations. Michael himself had always denied or minimized the extent of the surgeries. Many others make fun or use it for their comedy shows while Lisa provided the most sensible philosophic response I ever heard – hence to me, that explanation, which is completely satisfying to me, was the most important contribution of Lisa Marie to her marriage with Michael Jackson.
Bush war on Iraq and WMD
This trial must also be understood within the larger context of the current war against Iraq which is the prevailing fixation of the orthodoxy at this time. Bush’s vicious and criminal warfare against Iraq and Mr. Jackson’s racist indictment and rigorous trial are interconnected, inextricably linked together; and must be so understood and analyzed. First, it is not by accident that Mr. Jackson was indicted just after his announcement, and a couple of other celebrities including Madonna, that they would undertake national and global tours against the war. Nobody would convince me that the potential huge negative impacts of vigorous national and global anti-war activities – concerts, speeches, donations, etc. – by Mr. Jackson and other celebrities, which they had announced could not have been noticed and planned for by the enormously brilliant Karl Rove – the famed administration strategist and Bush’s brain. Tom Sneddon was therefore, clearly working for the Bush administration when he indicted Michael Jackson just as he geared up to join the growing storm of anti-war protesters. The only unknown answer is whether the move was deliberate, conscious and planned in cohort with the Bush federal forces, which would make it a conspiratorial move against Mr. Jackson or whether the indictment at the time was just a mere coincidence. I do not know the answer to that and I do not want to speculate, but whether it was conscious or unconscious, the incontrovertible fact is that the indictment tied Mr. Jackson down and has diverted his enormous energies and resources away from anti-war activities to the more urgent issues of his personal survival. There is, therefore no doubt that one person or organization who gained most from the current imbroglio of Mr. Jackson is President Bush and his administration.
Furthermore, I am not talking of only the diversion and tying down of Mr. Jackson’s energies and resources but a fair amount of national and global media resources and energies are also inexorably tied down and diverted from anti-war movements and coverage to covering the salacious details of Mr. Jackson’s trial. This is because most people are fascinated with Michael Jackson and would rather watch him or anything about him than anything else and this includes even those who openly profess to hate him. The truth is that even his avowed haters do not resist the urge or temptation to turn the television or read the tabloid or even the “respectable” newspapers about him. Records show that television houses garner skyrocketing rates when they show “specials” about Michael Jackson – and this includes CBS, 60 Minutes, ABC’s 20/20 and many other “respectable” media. Michael Jackson clearly breaches the gap or the divide between tabloid and mainstream media. Oprah Show is clearly the most respectable and popular, the most watched show around today, yet it was a super-special event for Oprah and her millions fans when Mr. Jackson granted her a rare interview some years ago. Oprah flew to Neverland Ranch and took two full days to show her global audience the many details of Mr. Jackson’s fascinating life and the Ranch. Clearly, Oprah has very large followings of her own, but that rare interview on Michael Jackson shot her ratings to the roof and till today ranks as her most popular show. The point I am making is that Mr. Jackson is very huge. He is very, very huge in anything he does or that touches him or any cause that he promotes or uses his name. Mr. Jackson means huge money for businesses, large and small. He immediately becomes the main attraction for any event he attends. When he played at the super bowl, the rating skyrocketed even for super bowl which is already the most popular annual event in America. In fact some journalists and reporters like Nancy Grace and others have made their names from virulent anti-Jackson reporting. Ironically, Nancy Grace confesses to being a huge fan of Michael Jackson even as she makes her living today as the most virulent anti-Jackson CNN analyst.
The truth however, is that Mr. Jackson did not get to his phenomenal height and unprecedented popularity without also attracting substantial numbers of determined opponents. In fact, I am willing to argue that it is not theoretically and practically possible for anyone to get as big as Mr. Jackson without also some strong opponents. That is just nature. So while I deeply regret the present fate and predicament of Mr. Jackson, it is also clearly understandable to me that they are the inevitable outcomes and price of unparalleled life-achievements and fame especially for Mr. Jackson who has a predilection for popular causes and the common man. He has shown through his various actions -- charity organizations, contributions and other activities that he is “addicted” to and has unlimited energy and love for the afflicted, the children, the poor, the sick and the down trodden or for whom Franz Fanon called the, “Wretched of the Earth.” Some other celebrities had avoided Mr. Jackson’s fate by being apolitical like Frank Sinatra – just playing good, fun music which entertains and make people feel good, or they might combine their fun program/activities with active pro-establishment pro-government positions and activities like Bob Hope. This meant that Bob Hope was not just a damn good comedian, but a pro-government pro-military comedian-entertainer – a status that insulated him from any possible personal aggressors. Some titles of Michael’s song will confirm what I am saying – We are the World; Heal the World; They Don’t Care About Us; Scream, etc.
Thus, Mr. Jackson who is black and did not have the “official” cover of Bob Hope or the neutrality of Frank Sinatra to protect him became open to the vulturistic tendencies of the various contending forces that are swamping to prey on him. Besides, Michael did not protect himself like Oprah who is pro-government, pro-Bush, pro-establishment orthodoxy and “Oreo” in operation and appeal. On this level, the current trial of Michael Jackson must therefore also be seen as part of what I call President Bush’s WMD – Weapon of Mass Deception – a theory that is fully developed in my upcoming book titled, Bush War on Iraq: Weapon of Mass Deception (WMD) and America’s Theory and Practice of Colonialism in the Modern Age.
Briefly, my Bush and WMD theory says that his war on Iraq, which was pre-planned by Bush’s key Cabinet members long before he seized power in the White House is part of Bush’s strategy to keep us tied down and to divert our attention away from talking about the stolen state power in 2000 election. So the war instantly made the fledgling Bush a popular war-time president and made it politically incorrect to refer to him as the Pretender to the throne – which is what he really is. Please, read books by Vincent Bugliosi, Alan Dershovitz, Greg Palast and many others to see the outrageous and criminal ways W. Bush used to pervert our system and culture to get to the White House in 2000. Now having gotten to the White House through clearly outrageous and unsavory ways, Bush needed weapons of mass deception (WMD) to tie down and distract people from continued discussion of the events so he started the wars – in Afghanistan and later , Iraq. Read David Ray Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 to understand the smokescreens of 9/11 and Bush wars. And when Iraq was not a cake walk as Bush forces had predicted and presented to us, but rather became chaotic and presented major difficulties for him, he needed other WMDs from Iraq itself. So the trial of Mr. Jackson is part and parcel of the plethora of WMDs that have been used and/or invented to tie us down, prevent, and/or divert us from discussion and knowledge of the pogrom, carnages, atrocities, tortures, misery, plunder, roguery and all the multiplying sufferings of Iraqis and Americans due to Bush’s criminal genocidal warfare in Iraq.
Why the prosecution failed to prove its case
I have spent sometime talking about the general situation of Mr. Jackson because I believe that it is important to understand the general context of the trail. Now, let me show specifically why the prosecutions did not prove its case here.
If Mr. Jackson is a pedophilia as Tom Sneddon had presented him in his unusually high profile press conference in November 2003, this case would have been clear cut and a slam dunk for him. He would have shown and demonstrated a clear history of child molestation by the defendant. After all, Mr. Jackson has had a clear history of many close associations and friendships with children, so we cannot say that the question of opportunity was not there. Besides, the prosecution and the judge invited, enticed and allowed any child who was Michael’s friend to come and testify against him. It was an open invitation for anyone who has any slightest grudge against Michael to come and spill before the camera with the state’s maximal protection; and Tom Sneddon even sent his people out scouting for witnesses to buttress their case. So the DA, with the help and complicity of the judge, had hoped to inundate the public with Michael’s sex extravaganza with children. The media, tabloids, main stream, etc. were all ready and geared up for the tantalizing and salacious and spicy details. Even Tom Sneddon’s press conference to announce Michael’s arrest and indictment was quite unusual. I have never seen a District Attorney announce the arrest and booking of a suspect with such fanfare, excitement and glee as Ton Sneddon showed in November 2003 even before the grand jury indictment. He sent over ninety armed cops to search Neverland Ranch – a number that would suggest a military invasion of a hostile territory. Moreover, the bail of three million dollars, which he set for Michael was clearly excessive especially for someone who has a very popular abode (Neverland Ranch) in the neighborhood. They also seized his passport. In fact I do not recall anyone else with such exorbitant bail nor is it usual to seize passports of suspects or even indicted suspects. Why the unusual highhandedness with Michael, we were never told. Even Robert Blake who was charged with the murder of his wife was given only one million dollar bail. The point is that there has been hyper-racism in many things connected with the trial including the exclusion of all blacks from the jury – and people said nothing – except Rev. Jesse Jackson. The judge even allowed presentations and appearances from previous cases where Michael him to show pattern of malfeasance by Mr. Jackson according to them. Yet, the judge did not allow similar presentation of previous pattern of fraudulent financial escapades by the mother of the accuser to show and buttress the main defense position that the charge is a financial shakedown by a woman who had done similar things before.
Yet there is not a single one of his many former child friends and former accusers who came out with clear history or narrations detailing the specifics of their various molestations by Mr. Jackson. The much trumpeted prosecution’s pattern showed only one thing which we all already know – that Mr. Jackson likes children, that he prefers the company of children, that he derives his best joy and creativity when he is with children and behaving like children. Also we leant that he spends good money on them, that he buys them expensive gifts – Rolex watches, electronic toys, etc. We also learnt that Neverland Ranch was designed essentially for children so that he can live in Peter Pan world. He has even said on television that, “without children he would be gone.” So what is new? We already know all those things about him. The truth is that as weird as such behaviors might be or seem to some, they are not criminal actions which is why the millions of parents who already know this are still happy to take their children to meet him – the Great One.
I watch one comedian rake his biggest laugh when he said that whether Michael Jackson is guilty or not of the crimes against him is not important. This popular comedian even admitted that he has no specific knowledge of Michael’s guilt here, but that he should be found guilty because, “it has been shown that he dates children and buys them expensive gifts, Rolex watches, etc, at 45 years old.” And American roared with laughter and approbations. This is the tragedy of America – that we are often too eager to throw away and discard our much vouched principles – I wonder what has happened to our core principle that one is adjudged innocent until proven guilty or may be it does not apply to Michael Jackson. This is the logic that the jury must reject. If the case is not proven, as in this case, the jury must acquit. It is not a criminal offense to “date” or hang out with children.
It must also be known that Mr. Jackson has particular affinity for children who are afflicted. The case of Ryan was the first time I noticed such qualities in him. Ryan who was afflicted with HIV at a tender age became Mr. Jackson’s chum. Michael lavished attention and resources on him until his most unfortunate premature death when Michael composed and released a very loving song for Ryan. I particularly remember when Michael went to Ryan’s funeral and strove very hard not to be seen or heard because he did not want to draw attention and focus away from his dead friend. That was typical Michael. Quiet, very polite, unassuming.
The truth is that while Michael loves all children and eagerly opens up himself and his resources to them as clearly demonstrated by his lifestyle, he has special extra-affinity for the afflicted ones among them. Thus Michael’s unique and profound weakness is his known inability to say no to an afflicted child. This particular accuser is the case in point. He was very sick, afflicted with terminal cancer and given just months to live. Records show that the boy or his family had called other celebrities looking for solace and help. At least, Jay Leno testified that he got the calls and did not respond because he did not want to be bothered or suspected that it was a fraud and set-up for which I do not blame him. It was Michael who never rejects a needy child that responded and plunged himself and his massive resources into saving the child. Today, we have a healthy child who credited Michael for saving his life and for which Michael must be happy and grateful to God for giving him the resources, talents and the disposition to love and help heal children of the world. We should remember Michael’s Heal the World Foundation, his We Are the World song and projects.
It is ironical that it is this same family (mother and child duo) helped the most by Michael that are trying very hard to tear him down. But I am confident that as the jury has heard the full case now, they will know the real Michael and find that this charge of child molestation is baseless and ridiculous as Macaulay Culkin, his most famous child friend testified for the prosecution. It must be noted that Mr. Culkin was touted by the prosecution and the media as one of the child friends of Michael whom he molested and who would boost their case. Mr. Culkin came and testified for the prosecution that he was a very good friend of Michael at an early age, had visited his Neverland Ranch many times and yes, in fact had slept in his bed many times but that there was nothing sexual that ever happened – and that he feels that the current charge of molesting this boy is “ridiculous.” I thank Macaulay Culkin and the world must thank him. I have watched his Home Alone many times. I even have the DVD. It is a great movie and he is a great actor. We wish him greater bounties and more God’s blessings in his life endeavors. He is clearly a good man. Blessed are the Culkins and all those who receive the blessings of friends and acknowledge them at their worst hours of great travail instead of becoming the Brutus that delivers the decisive fatal stab.
Also Debbie Rowe, Michael ex-wife and mother of his children, was also called by the prosecution as part of their team to destroy Mr. Jackson – something I thing is wrong and unethical to ‘force” someone’s spouse to testify against him or her in a criminal proceeding. This is morally and legally wrong because the concept of marriage assumes and connotes unity, oneness and indivisibility which is why spouses cannot testify against the other in criminal cases. The principle applies whether it is current or ex-spouse because the information being sought was gotten when they were one and therefore cannot be used against the other later. The same principle applies in the case of an attorney who is barred from using the information gained in the process of defending a client to testify against him or her in a later criminal proceeding. But somehow, this prosecution and judge found a way to get around this inviolate and sacrosanct principle and law and got Debbie Rowe to testify against Mr. Jackson. However, unfortunately for the prosecution, Debbie turned against them and told them exactly what they did not want to hear. The prosecution brought Debbie after they had dined her at a luxurious restaurant where they coached her on what to say, and then leaked out information that Debbie had even turned against Michael and would be coming to testify against him in the molestation trial. In fact, there were riveting media speculations that Debbie would not only testify against Michael but was preparing to sew him herself to take custody of the children due to Michael’s prohibitive actions and tendencies. So it was with great anticipation and trepidation that Debbie’s testimony was awaited as she appeared to testify in court. Unfortunately for the prosecution, she told the court that Michael did not molest anybody, that the problem with Michael is that “he is a very kind person”, that Michael is an angel and that they should leave “my Michael” alone. These were incredible professions, confessions and protestations from someone who was called by prosecution to help boost and clinch their case Michael. I wonder how many persons could get such accolades from their ex-spouses or even from current spouses especially when the guy is in a terrible fix like Michael and the state, with their enticements, want some other rhythms. The truth is that most currently married people would be celebrating if their spouses called them “angel” or talk so glowingly about them. In fact, some currently married spouses actually think and call their spouses, monsters” let alone when talking about their ex-spouses. Debbie Rowe’s statements are therefore exemplary, and more than any other evidence presented in that courtroom, confirm that Michael is truly exceptional.
The intriguing question, however is why did the prosecution get it so wrong about Debbie and Macaulay Culkin? How did they not know or even bothered to investigate the true feelings of Debbie about his ex-husband. The truth is that the press has built and sustained this image of Michael as a weird horrible pedophiliac monster and has never bothered to check with any other person because they were so sure that they were right. The prosecution was flatly guilty of its own historical stereotyping of Michael Jackson. To me therefore, Debbie and Culkin are truly the real heroes of this trial because they represent the common experience and feelings of ordinary Americans who have had long-time intimate relationship and dealings with Michael Jackson which I am sure the jury will now confirm.
The Ultimate Exculpatory Evidence for Michael
There are so many more good things to say about “my Michael” whom I have never met in person, that I could write this indefinitely because he is truly a fascinating character, but let me close by stating one more reason why Michael could not have sexually molested this child as alleged. Again, let us go through the whole accusations carefully. This will help us see how it defies simple ordinary reasoning and commonsense logic that such molestations would have occurred. Now, we are told that the molestations occurred after Michael had appeared in the now, infamous Bashir video where Michael appeared with the boy holding hand together during which Michael also stated that he had shared his bed with boys in a purely non-sexual way. As shocking as the statement might be, I remember watching it with awe and hope he never does it again. I however want to state here that there is nothing criminal in the act unless there were sexual activities. Personally, I will not invite a child to sleep in my bed because it is simply nauseating, but it is not criminal to do so. And this was what Michael was trying to explain in the video but we are too daft to understand him especially in the world that is so sexually oriented and cannot conceive of people having innocent non-sexual relationship. When I was growing up in Nigeria, there was something we called platonic relationship, i.e. relationships with the opposite sex that involved no sexual intentions and actions. There were many such relationships then in my generation in Nigeria. Dictionary defines platonic relationship as, “not involving sexual relations -- involving friendship, affection, or love without sexual relations between people who might be expected to be sexually attracted to each other.”
The American society is not comfortable with platonic relationship. We assign sexuality to many relationships which is unfortunate because people can just be good friends without being sexual. My point, is that sleeping in bed with a child in not a crime even in America unless sexual activities occurred. As a social scientist, I will say that it is against the norm of the society but it is not a crime and the jury must bear this in mind as they deliberate. The jury must not convict Michael for going against the norm. Michael has gone against the norm in America. Sure he has, but he has not committed a crime. He must therefore be acquitted.
Finally, it is important to note that even the information which Michael volunteered that boys have slept in his bed is perhaps the most important fundamental exculpatory evidence in his arsenal of defense. If boys have historically slept in his bed as he told us, and there are enough evidence and witnesses to that, yet not one single one of them claimed and detailed molestation by him, does that not confirm that Michael was just having innocent platonic relationships with the boys, which I emphasize again, is not a crime.
Along, the same logic, if Michael has been quite close with the current accuser, including sleeping in his bed, as all testified, and never molested him before their joint media appearance, why would Michael suddenly start molesting him after their joint video appearance. It not only defies logic and commonsense but defies fundamental biology. I am a social scientist, but I will like to know why and how a dormant pedophiliac gene in Michael suddenly took over and gripped him into the abominable act. The truth is that if Michael is a pedophiliac, the genes would have manifested themselves clearly and unequivocally many times in the inner chambers of his bedroom all these many years. More importantly he would have been molesting this current child long before their joint video appearance.
It is for all the above reasons that I most strongly urge the jury to acquit Michael so that he can go back and continue the many great works he has been doing. I learnt from Jesse Jackson that Michael plans to build a children’s team pack like Neverland Ranch in Africa. I wish him good luck and God’s Guidance in all his future endeavors. But Michael, please do the millions of us who love you dearly a favor – Do not let children in your private places and bedroom next time. This trial has been traumatic not just for you but for all of us who love you. For me you are “Michael, the Great, King of Pop”. This is how history will remember you and there is nothing anybody can do about it. God Bless and Thank you.
© Amechi Okolo, PhD.
May 31, 2005
From: © Professor Amechi Okolo.
To: Thomas Mesereau, Michael Jackson’s Defense Attorney
May 31, 2005
I write this to express my full support for Michael Jackson and to wish him God’s protection in this horrible ordeal. I know that it must have been a nightmare for him to go through this trial and I pray for God’s strength and guidance through this most difficult period in his most remarkable life. I am therefore writing this to register my full support for him at this time when he needs the comfort and encouragement of all his supporters, admirers and fans. I write this because I believe that this trial is unfair, contrived and racist, and I believe that God will see him exonerated in the not distant future. You have conducted this trial most ably and I also pray for you.
Now that the trial is concluded and you are preparing for your closing statements, I write this to make some suggestions which I hope might help to clinch the victory. I also feel that it is, perhaps timely for me to put down my thoughts, feelings and observations about Michael on paper at this most difficult period of his life. Let me just confess to you that the day Michael Jackson is pronounced “not guilty” by the jury will be one of the happiest days in my life because it will be one more affirmation of justice which the world desperately needs at this most excruciating epoch. I do not know Michael Jackson personally, and I have never met him in person, but I have followed his career ever since I came to this country in 1971 and enrolled at Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana; and I am convinced and can avow that he is the greatest entertainer who has ever worked the face of this earth. I have watched him for entertainment purposes and studied him as an academician and a social scientist and I can say with all seriousness that he is a genius and a rare gem. Moreover, besides being clearly the greatest entertainer the world has ever known, nobody even comes closer to taking his place whenever he physically leaves the scene.
The major problem America has with Michael Jackson is his race – the fact that he is black, exceptionally successful and politically active. America being a fundamentally racist system is ever mortified by the prospects of a black or colored being the “greatest” in any positive life endeavor. More importantly, the uniqueness of Michael is that he achieved his phenomenal and unprecedented rise not just without the props and support of the American mass media but in spite of their very hostile and historically openly antagonistic representation. The fact is that America’s media have rarely presented Michael in a positive way. They usually use the most negative and insinuating words to refer to or describe him. For example, the standard media reference to him in America is, “Michael Jackson, the self-styled King of Pop.” This is even supposed to be a generous presentation of him. Now compare this to their usual favorable reference to Elvis as, “the King.” Hence, according to America’s media, while Michael is self-styled and self-imposing – an imposter; Elvis was or is people-crowned, God-ordained and God-anointed. The simple question is, can anyone, please tell when and who crowned Elvis the king or when Michael crowned himself the king? This is racism par excellence. The truth is that Michael never crowned himself a king nor did anyone ever crown Elvis a king. In truth, US does not even have royalty. The title, king is, therefore simply media creation. They had evaluated the two giant entertainers as worthy of the exalted title and hence started using the title “king” to distinguish them from others. But the fundamental racism of the system forced them to taint Michael’s with the phrase, “self-styled” so that he will not be on par with Elvis’. With time most Americans accepted and/or even began to enjoy the distinction without caring and/or understanding its underlying racist implications. This is just a tip of the racism and negative press reporting about Michael that saturates America’s media as national entertainment.
So, for America’s power-establishment, Michael must be brought down as quickly and as violently as possible because he has gone against America’s fundamental grain by climbing and remaining at the apex of not just America but global entertainers – a status that in America is left only for the whites. Hence, Michael’s “sins” are multiple. He is a black and a male in America. He achieved phenomenal successes in the system instead of being in jail as many of his likes. Furthermore, to add more insults to already grievous offenses, Michael aggravated his sins when he achieved his status in spite of and in opposition to America’s mass media. Hence, this indictment and the trail is due to a confluence of conspiratorial negative and racist forces that have historically felt offended by Michael’s “recalcitrance” due to his uncompromising march to the acme of global entertainment in spite of them. Tom Sneddon, the District Attorney, is therefore simply the tool for implementing this racist policy because of Neverland’s physical location in his area of jurisdiction. So while Tom Sneddon is the point man in the efforts to pull Michael down, the conspiracy is clearly far larger than one person. It is systemic and institutional. Michael Jackson’s problems with America, and particularly this child molestation indictment and trial must therefore be seen and studied as part of institutional racism that we study and teach as academicians and social science professors in universities and colleges across the nation.
Thus, the circumstances of this trial need to be recast and rehearsed for records and for memory. This trial has shown that Michael Jackson is clearly innocent of the many charges against him. Long before Mr. Jackson was brought to this specific trial, the American media has persistently created and painted an image of Mr. Jackson as a weird pedophilia – a pathological devious nymph who lures children to Neverland to molest them and gratify his sexual pleasures. Yet, in spite of their very rigorous efforts, the prosecution has failed to prove any of their points. They have failed to prove that Mr. Jackson is a congenital, historical pedophilia. More importantly, they failed to prove that Mr. Jackson molested this particular child. Congenital means ingrained in someone’s character, firmly established as part of someone’s character, beliefs and behaviors – something that is genetic.
Yes, Mr. Jackson has at times acted in ways that may seem odd or weird to some people or even to members of the jury -- and me, but this trial is not about someone being weird, odd or strange, which is not a crime in our current system of jurisprudence. Michael is on trial here for specific child sexual molestation charges which the prosecution did not prove. And when the case is not proven, he must be acquitted. Members of the jury, please remember that when the prosecution fails to prove their case, you must acquit. This is our law and it applies with equal force to Mr. Jackson as well as to each and every one of us. Therefore, you cannot convict Mr. Jackson for his “weird” behaviors or for behaviors which America’s media and comedy houses gleefully dub him Wacko, Jacko to garner their largest attentions and loudest ovations. The American media from gossip centers to tabloids to mainstream all compete among themselves and pull their largest attentions, sell their largest number of circulations and draw their loudest ovations by their invention and mindless repeat of their various salacious “Wacko, Jacko” stories. I remember, long before this trial seeing Michael on television complain about how the media refers to him as “Wacko, Jacko”. I remember watching a man who was deeply hurt and injured as he complained and pleaded that they stop calling or referring to him as “Wacko, Jacko” He declared then, “I am not Wacko, I am not Jacko. I am Michael Jackson, and it hurts me to hear you refer to me that way.” The English dictionary defines Wacko as, “an offensive term that deliberately insults somebody regarded as unconventional, unpredictable or unusual.” The point is that the American media revels in its creation of unsavory, distasteful, unpalatable and immoral images of Mr. Jackson. They garner their audience and boost their sales with their constant negative portrayals of Mr. Jackson. Just as America media is addicted to sex, crime and violence as their most lucrative strategy to increase audience and boost sales irrespective of how it damages our youth as long as their bottom line is uplifted, the media is nonchalant about the feelings or personal damages to Mr. Jackson as long as their profits are going up. This is what I call prostitution journalism in America – i.e. journalism that only cares for profits and not positive service to society.
However, besides, some minor and rare complaints by Mr. Jackson, he has largely ignored the orchestrated and institutional media assaults against him and continues to live his legendary and phenomenal productive life with admirable dignity, calm and equanimity and as graciously and as selflessly as possible. Mr. Jackson is clearly unique among many in this day and age. There is no doubt or dispute about that. He has had nose change and other cosmetic surgeries which some people are not comfortable with. In fact some people feel deeply offended by his physical changes and transformations – and they are entitled to their views. The important question, however is whether his actions are criminal or evil intended and my answer is a resounding no. More importantly, the prosecution has failed to prove any evil or criminal acts or intention against Mr. Jackson in this case. In this age of celebrity attention-grabbing, Mr. Jackson has maintained his cool and distance from television and media glares. He does not attend talk-shows nor grant interviews like most other celebrities. Therefore, since he does not go to the media to promote himself or his projects as most others do, the media, talk-show hosts, talking-heads, tabloids, etc., trample and stampede upon themselves as they try and rush to cover him. I think that part of the intense media hatred of Mr. Jackson is their revulsion at being “forced” to cover him to increase their ratings instead of the other way round when celebrities actively seek the media to promote themselves and/or their projects. Mr. Jackson does not need America’s media for publicity as other celebrities. Rather it is America’s media that needs him for their own sustenance. This is irony but it is true. Mere mention of Michael Jackson or the hint that he will be at or participate in any event guarantees overflowing audience and high television rating and superlative dollar values for the television station and the papers. Nobody has that kind of magnetism or crowd draw-power as Michael has. Most people would watch or read anything about Michael whether they like him, are his fans or not – and for a black that could generate intense inner hatred and jealousy from the media, the racist system and some public.
Michael Jackson is the single most recognizable living face and name on the earth today. From Africa to Latin America to Asia, India, China, Japan, Russia, to Europe –France, Germany, United Kingdom. From east to west United States, Canada – in fact, in all corners of the globe – in all the continents of the globe, Michael is known, recognized, loved and adored. This is a phenomenal and unprecedented achievement that has never happened before. No body in recorded history has ever achieved this kind of global fame, let alone in the person’s lifetime – and Michael did that without the help of officialdom and in spite of institutional, sustained, negative media coverage about him.
For example, the media coverage of the trial is both a circus and a testimony to the national and global interests and impacts of Michael Jackson. Apart from the throngs of media reporters that are stationed around the courthouse, the makeup of enthusiastic and chanting Michael Jackson fans that crowd the trial venue every day waiting to catch a glimpse and, perhaps a wave from their idol as he daily comes and leaves the court with their various placards that proclaim his innocence is fascinating, indicative and informative. It is not just their large and their swelling numbers that must be heartwarming to Mr. Jackson and his loved ones, or the various encouraging, reassuring and confirming messages of their placards, but the racial, ethnic, national, age and gender mix of the fans and their dedication to the man. Nobody has or has had the kind of fans that Michael has – not in numbers, not in dedication and certainly not in mix and diversity. Michael is thus, the first and only celebrity who truly transcends race and ethnicity. He breaches the gap and the great divide between black, white, Asians, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, etc in morphology, attitude and behavior. Thus his surgical transformations could be understood as parts of his eternal strive towards global unity and oneness just as he verbalized in his hit song, “I don’t care if you are black or white” and also mechanically/artistically performed.
One of the most interesting things about Michael is the world’s very enthusiastic embrace of his uniracial morphological and behavioral transformations. Thus he has very huge and highly dedicated fans from all races and all nationalities. People just deal with him as one huge phenomenon – not as black or any particular race. Even though Michael was born black and has done some major cosmetic surgeries that may look to some that he is trying to deny or hide his blackness. Yet blacks are mostly not offended by his looks while most whites and other races do not care because his fans are only interested in his talents, actions and behaviors. Hence his fans at the trial represent true mosaic of humanity. While Michael knows that people can be racist as he once accused Matola, the Sony boss, he is just deeply interested in people. Michael just loves people of all races, and thank God, they love him back with equal zeal – and that is great healthy news – for people of all races, irrespective of age and gender to agree on one thing. Hence, in this respect, Michael has done more to advance the course of human unity and happiness more than any single living human being today.
Yet, while Michael genuinely loves people of all races, gender and age, all children and especially the afflicted ones are his specialties. He has a special calling and affinity with them such that may actually be difficult for ordinary mortals like us to appreciate or even understand. My point is that while Michael understands that there are different races in the world, he thinks that such differences are unimportant and inconsequential, hence he actively operates to undermine such artificial differences to the enthusiastic and warmth embrace of the world as evidenced by the excitement, passion and sheer global enormity and dedication of his followers. It is, therefore important to understand that it is the same gene that made Michael to ignore the great racial divide, which many people think are very important and life-defining and to actively work to subvert and destroy it that conditioned him not to recognize the age divide which many also think are very important, fixed and life-defining. Thus, just as Michael rigorously refuses to be pigeonholed in looks, action or behavior as “black or white” as regular folks, he has also rigorously refused to let age limit his choice of friends as most people do. Thus Michael has many personal friends of all ages and races. Hence, among his known very close friends are Liz Taylor, a much older white lady and Diana Ross, a much older black lady. The point is that Michael has always had friends that are outside our “acceptable” range because he does not want to be constrained by race, gender or age. So Michael’s surgical transformations, his behaviors and his friendships with much older women and much younger boys can all be explained as his historical efforts not to explode out of accepted orthodoxy. They have nothing to do with sexual orientation or preferences but just his understanding of a world that should not be defined or constrained by race, gender or age.
On this, I need to add that it was Lisa Marie Presely, the ex-wife of Michael Jackson who came close to satisfactorily explaining his many cosmetic surgeries during the rare interview they gave during their marriage. The reporters kept asking their usual many questions about Michael’s cosmetic surgeries to which he actually had no satisfactory response until his wife cut in and said, “Look Michael is an artist. He creates and recreates many things in his own way. His surgery is also a way of creating, recreating or expressing himself.” Lisa’s response was the most intelligent explanation I ever heard from Michael or anyone else about his obvious cosmetic transformations. Michael himself had always denied or minimized the extent of the surgeries. Many others make fun or use it for their comedy shows while Lisa provided the most sensible philosophic response I ever heard – hence to me, that explanation, which is completely satisfying to me, was the most important contribution of Lisa Marie to her marriage with Michael Jackson.
Bush war on Iraq and WMD
This trial must also be understood within the larger context of the current war against Iraq which is the prevailing fixation of the orthodoxy at this time. Bush’s vicious and criminal warfare against Iraq and Mr. Jackson’s racist indictment and rigorous trial are interconnected, inextricably linked together; and must be so understood and analyzed. First, it is not by accident that Mr. Jackson was indicted just after his announcement, and a couple of other celebrities including Madonna, that they would undertake national and global tours against the war. Nobody would convince me that the potential huge negative impacts of vigorous national and global anti-war activities – concerts, speeches, donations, etc. – by Mr. Jackson and other celebrities, which they had announced could not have been noticed and planned for by the enormously brilliant Karl Rove – the famed administration strategist and Bush’s brain. Tom Sneddon was therefore, clearly working for the Bush administration when he indicted Michael Jackson just as he geared up to join the growing storm of anti-war protesters. The only unknown answer is whether the move was deliberate, conscious and planned in cohort with the Bush federal forces, which would make it a conspiratorial move against Mr. Jackson or whether the indictment at the time was just a mere coincidence. I do not know the answer to that and I do not want to speculate, but whether it was conscious or unconscious, the incontrovertible fact is that the indictment tied Mr. Jackson down and has diverted his enormous energies and resources away from anti-war activities to the more urgent issues of his personal survival. There is, therefore no doubt that one person or organization who gained most from the current imbroglio of Mr. Jackson is President Bush and his administration.
Furthermore, I am not talking of only the diversion and tying down of Mr. Jackson’s energies and resources but a fair amount of national and global media resources and energies are also inexorably tied down and diverted from anti-war movements and coverage to covering the salacious details of Mr. Jackson’s trial. This is because most people are fascinated with Michael Jackson and would rather watch him or anything about him than anything else and this includes even those who openly profess to hate him. The truth is that even his avowed haters do not resist the urge or temptation to turn the television or read the tabloid or even the “respectable” newspapers about him. Records show that television houses garner skyrocketing rates when they show “specials” about Michael Jackson – and this includes CBS, 60 Minutes, ABC’s 20/20 and many other “respectable” media. Michael Jackson clearly breaches the gap or the divide between tabloid and mainstream media. Oprah Show is clearly the most respectable and popular, the most watched show around today, yet it was a super-special event for Oprah and her millions fans when Mr. Jackson granted her a rare interview some years ago. Oprah flew to Neverland Ranch and took two full days to show her global audience the many details of Mr. Jackson’s fascinating life and the Ranch. Clearly, Oprah has very large followings of her own, but that rare interview on Michael Jackson shot her ratings to the roof and till today ranks as her most popular show. The point I am making is that Mr. Jackson is very huge. He is very, very huge in anything he does or that touches him or any cause that he promotes or uses his name. Mr. Jackson means huge money for businesses, large and small. He immediately becomes the main attraction for any event he attends. When he played at the super bowl, the rating skyrocketed even for super bowl which is already the most popular annual event in America. In fact some journalists and reporters like Nancy Grace and others have made their names from virulent anti-Jackson reporting. Ironically, Nancy Grace confesses to being a huge fan of Michael Jackson even as she makes her living today as the most virulent anti-Jackson CNN analyst.
The truth however, is that Mr. Jackson did not get to his phenomenal height and unprecedented popularity without also attracting substantial numbers of determined opponents. In fact, I am willing to argue that it is not theoretically and practically possible for anyone to get as big as Mr. Jackson without also some strong opponents. That is just nature. So while I deeply regret the present fate and predicament of Mr. Jackson, it is also clearly understandable to me that they are the inevitable outcomes and price of unparalleled life-achievements and fame especially for Mr. Jackson who has a predilection for popular causes and the common man. He has shown through his various actions -- charity organizations, contributions and other activities that he is “addicted” to and has unlimited energy and love for the afflicted, the children, the poor, the sick and the down trodden or for whom Franz Fanon called the, “Wretched of the Earth.” Some other celebrities had avoided Mr. Jackson’s fate by being apolitical like Frank Sinatra – just playing good, fun music which entertains and make people feel good, or they might combine their fun program/activities with active pro-establishment pro-government positions and activities like Bob Hope. This meant that Bob Hope was not just a damn good comedian, but a pro-government pro-military comedian-entertainer – a status that insulated him from any possible personal aggressors. Some titles of Michael’s song will confirm what I am saying – We are the World; Heal the World; They Don’t Care About Us; Scream, etc.
Thus, Mr. Jackson who is black and did not have the “official” cover of Bob Hope or the neutrality of Frank Sinatra to protect him became open to the vulturistic tendencies of the various contending forces that are swamping to prey on him. Besides, Michael did not protect himself like Oprah who is pro-government, pro-Bush, pro-establishment orthodoxy and “Oreo” in operation and appeal. On this level, the current trial of Michael Jackson must therefore also be seen as part of what I call President Bush’s WMD – Weapon of Mass Deception – a theory that is fully developed in my upcoming book titled, Bush War on Iraq: Weapon of Mass Deception (WMD) and America’s Theory and Practice of Colonialism in the Modern Age.
Briefly, my Bush and WMD theory says that his war on Iraq, which was pre-planned by Bush’s key Cabinet members long before he seized power in the White House is part of Bush’s strategy to keep us tied down and to divert our attention away from talking about the stolen state power in 2000 election. So the war instantly made the fledgling Bush a popular war-time president and made it politically incorrect to refer to him as the Pretender to the throne – which is what he really is. Please, read books by Vincent Bugliosi, Alan Dershovitz, Greg Palast and many others to see the outrageous and criminal ways W. Bush used to pervert our system and culture to get to the White House in 2000. Now having gotten to the White House through clearly outrageous and unsavory ways, Bush needed weapons of mass deception (WMD) to tie down and distract people from continued discussion of the events so he started the wars – in Afghanistan and later , Iraq. Read David Ray Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 to understand the smokescreens of 9/11 and Bush wars. And when Iraq was not a cake walk as Bush forces had predicted and presented to us, but rather became chaotic and presented major difficulties for him, he needed other WMDs from Iraq itself. So the trial of Mr. Jackson is part and parcel of the plethora of WMDs that have been used and/or invented to tie us down, prevent, and/or divert us from discussion and knowledge of the pogrom, carnages, atrocities, tortures, misery, plunder, roguery and all the multiplying sufferings of Iraqis and Americans due to Bush’s criminal genocidal warfare in Iraq.
Why the prosecution failed to prove its case
I have spent sometime talking about the general situation of Mr. Jackson because I believe that it is important to understand the general context of the trail. Now, let me show specifically why the prosecutions did not prove its case here.
If Mr. Jackson is a pedophilia as Tom Sneddon had presented him in his unusually high profile press conference in November 2003, this case would have been clear cut and a slam dunk for him. He would have shown and demonstrated a clear history of child molestation by the defendant. After all, Mr. Jackson has had a clear history of many close associations and friendships with children, so we cannot say that the question of opportunity was not there. Besides, the prosecution and the judge invited, enticed and allowed any child who was Michael’s friend to come and testify against him. It was an open invitation for anyone who has any slightest grudge against Michael to come and spill before the camera with the state’s maximal protection; and Tom Sneddon even sent his people out scouting for witnesses to buttress their case. So the DA, with the help and complicity of the judge, had hoped to inundate the public with Michael’s sex extravaganza with children. The media, tabloids, main stream, etc. were all ready and geared up for the tantalizing and salacious and spicy details. Even Tom Sneddon’s press conference to announce Michael’s arrest and indictment was quite unusual. I have never seen a District Attorney announce the arrest and booking of a suspect with such fanfare, excitement and glee as Ton Sneddon showed in November 2003 even before the grand jury indictment. He sent over ninety armed cops to search Neverland Ranch – a number that would suggest a military invasion of a hostile territory. Moreover, the bail of three million dollars, which he set for Michael was clearly excessive especially for someone who has a very popular abode (Neverland Ranch) in the neighborhood. They also seized his passport. In fact I do not recall anyone else with such exorbitant bail nor is it usual to seize passports of suspects or even indicted suspects. Why the unusual highhandedness with Michael, we were never told. Even Robert Blake who was charged with the murder of his wife was given only one million dollar bail. The point is that there has been hyper-racism in many things connected with the trial including the exclusion of all blacks from the jury – and people said nothing – except Rev. Jesse Jackson. The judge even allowed presentations and appearances from previous cases where Michael him to show pattern of malfeasance by Mr. Jackson according to them. Yet, the judge did not allow similar presentation of previous pattern of fraudulent financial escapades by the mother of the accuser to show and buttress the main defense position that the charge is a financial shakedown by a woman who had done similar things before.
Yet there is not a single one of his many former child friends and former accusers who came out with clear history or narrations detailing the specifics of their various molestations by Mr. Jackson. The much trumpeted prosecution’s pattern showed only one thing which we all already know – that Mr. Jackson likes children, that he prefers the company of children, that he derives his best joy and creativity when he is with children and behaving like children. Also we leant that he spends good money on them, that he buys them expensive gifts – Rolex watches, electronic toys, etc. We also learnt that Neverland Ranch was designed essentially for children so that he can live in Peter Pan world. He has even said on television that, “without children he would be gone.” So what is new? We already know all those things about him. The truth is that as weird as such behaviors might be or seem to some, they are not criminal actions which is why the millions of parents who already know this are still happy to take their children to meet him – the Great One.
I watch one comedian rake his biggest laugh when he said that whether Michael Jackson is guilty or not of the crimes against him is not important. This popular comedian even admitted that he has no specific knowledge of Michael’s guilt here, but that he should be found guilty because, “it has been shown that he dates children and buys them expensive gifts, Rolex watches, etc, at 45 years old.” And American roared with laughter and approbations. This is the tragedy of America – that we are often too eager to throw away and discard our much vouched principles – I wonder what has happened to our core principle that one is adjudged innocent until proven guilty or may be it does not apply to Michael Jackson. This is the logic that the jury must reject. If the case is not proven, as in this case, the jury must acquit. It is not a criminal offense to “date” or hang out with children.
It must also be known that Mr. Jackson has particular affinity for children who are afflicted. The case of Ryan was the first time I noticed such qualities in him. Ryan who was afflicted with HIV at a tender age became Mr. Jackson’s chum. Michael lavished attention and resources on him until his most unfortunate premature death when Michael composed and released a very loving song for Ryan. I particularly remember when Michael went to Ryan’s funeral and strove very hard not to be seen or heard because he did not want to draw attention and focus away from his dead friend. That was typical Michael. Quiet, very polite, unassuming.
The truth is that while Michael loves all children and eagerly opens up himself and his resources to them as clearly demonstrated by his lifestyle, he has special extra-affinity for the afflicted ones among them. Thus Michael’s unique and profound weakness is his known inability to say no to an afflicted child. This particular accuser is the case in point. He was very sick, afflicted with terminal cancer and given just months to live. Records show that the boy or his family had called other celebrities looking for solace and help. At least, Jay Leno testified that he got the calls and did not respond because he did not want to be bothered or suspected that it was a fraud and set-up for which I do not blame him. It was Michael who never rejects a needy child that responded and plunged himself and his massive resources into saving the child. Today, we have a healthy child who credited Michael for saving his life and for which Michael must be happy and grateful to God for giving him the resources, talents and the disposition to love and help heal children of the world. We should remember Michael’s Heal the World Foundation, his We Are the World song and projects.
It is ironical that it is this same family (mother and child duo) helped the most by Michael that are trying very hard to tear him down. But I am confident that as the jury has heard the full case now, they will know the real Michael and find that this charge of child molestation is baseless and ridiculous as Macaulay Culkin, his most famous child friend testified for the prosecution. It must be noted that Mr. Culkin was touted by the prosecution and the media as one of the child friends of Michael whom he molested and who would boost their case. Mr. Culkin came and testified for the prosecution that he was a very good friend of Michael at an early age, had visited his Neverland Ranch many times and yes, in fact had slept in his bed many times but that there was nothing sexual that ever happened – and that he feels that the current charge of molesting this boy is “ridiculous.” I thank Macaulay Culkin and the world must thank him. I have watched his Home Alone many times. I even have the DVD. It is a great movie and he is a great actor. We wish him greater bounties and more God’s blessings in his life endeavors. He is clearly a good man. Blessed are the Culkins and all those who receive the blessings of friends and acknowledge them at their worst hours of great travail instead of becoming the Brutus that delivers the decisive fatal stab.
Also Debbie Rowe, Michael ex-wife and mother of his children, was also called by the prosecution as part of their team to destroy Mr. Jackson – something I thing is wrong and unethical to ‘force” someone’s spouse to testify against him or her in a criminal proceeding. This is morally and legally wrong because the concept of marriage assumes and connotes unity, oneness and indivisibility which is why spouses cannot testify against the other in criminal cases. The principle applies whether it is current or ex-spouse because the information being sought was gotten when they were one and therefore cannot be used against the other later. The same principle applies in the case of an attorney who is barred from using the information gained in the process of defending a client to testify against him or her in a later criminal proceeding. But somehow, this prosecution and judge found a way to get around this inviolate and sacrosanct principle and law and got Debbie Rowe to testify against Mr. Jackson. However, unfortunately for the prosecution, Debbie turned against them and told them exactly what they did not want to hear. The prosecution brought Debbie after they had dined her at a luxurious restaurant where they coached her on what to say, and then leaked out information that Debbie had even turned against Michael and would be coming to testify against him in the molestation trial. In fact, there were riveting media speculations that Debbie would not only testify against Michael but was preparing to sew him herself to take custody of the children due to Michael’s prohibitive actions and tendencies. So it was with great anticipation and trepidation that Debbie’s testimony was awaited as she appeared to testify in court. Unfortunately for the prosecution, she told the court that Michael did not molest anybody, that the problem with Michael is that “he is a very kind person”, that Michael is an angel and that they should leave “my Michael” alone. These were incredible professions, confessions and protestations from someone who was called by prosecution to help boost and clinch their case Michael. I wonder how many persons could get such accolades from their ex-spouses or even from current spouses especially when the guy is in a terrible fix like Michael and the state, with their enticements, want some other rhythms. The truth is that most currently married people would be celebrating if their spouses called them “angel” or talk so glowingly about them. In fact, some currently married spouses actually think and call their spouses, monsters” let alone when talking about their ex-spouses. Debbie Rowe’s statements are therefore exemplary, and more than any other evidence presented in that courtroom, confirm that Michael is truly exceptional.
The intriguing question, however is why did the prosecution get it so wrong about Debbie and Macaulay Culkin? How did they not know or even bothered to investigate the true feelings of Debbie about his ex-husband. The truth is that the press has built and sustained this image of Michael as a weird horrible pedophiliac monster and has never bothered to check with any other person because they were so sure that they were right. The prosecution was flatly guilty of its own historical stereotyping of Michael Jackson. To me therefore, Debbie and Culkin are truly the real heroes of this trial because they represent the common experience and feelings of ordinary Americans who have had long-time intimate relationship and dealings with Michael Jackson which I am sure the jury will now confirm.
The Ultimate Exculpatory Evidence for Michael
There are so many more good things to say about “my Michael” whom I have never met in person, that I could write this indefinitely because he is truly a fascinating character, but let me close by stating one more reason why Michael could not have sexually molested this child as alleged. Again, let us go through the whole accusations carefully. This will help us see how it defies simple ordinary reasoning and commonsense logic that such molestations would have occurred. Now, we are told that the molestations occurred after Michael had appeared in the now, infamous Bashir video where Michael appeared with the boy holding hand together during which Michael also stated that he had shared his bed with boys in a purely non-sexual way. As shocking as the statement might be, I remember watching it with awe and hope he never does it again. I however want to state here that there is nothing criminal in the act unless there were sexual activities. Personally, I will not invite a child to sleep in my bed because it is simply nauseating, but it is not criminal to do so. And this was what Michael was trying to explain in the video but we are too daft to understand him especially in the world that is so sexually oriented and cannot conceive of people having innocent non-sexual relationship. When I was growing up in Nigeria, there was something we called platonic relationship, i.e. relationships with the opposite sex that involved no sexual intentions and actions. There were many such relationships then in my generation in Nigeria. Dictionary defines platonic relationship as, “not involving sexual relations -- involving friendship, affection, or love without sexual relations between people who might be expected to be sexually attracted to each other.”
The American society is not comfortable with platonic relationship. We assign sexuality to many relationships which is unfortunate because people can just be good friends without being sexual. My point, is that sleeping in bed with a child in not a crime even in America unless sexual activities occurred. As a social scientist, I will say that it is against the norm of the society but it is not a crime and the jury must bear this in mind as they deliberate. The jury must not convict Michael for going against the norm. Michael has gone against the norm in America. Sure he has, but he has not committed a crime. He must therefore be acquitted.
Finally, it is important to note that even the information which Michael volunteered that boys have slept in his bed is perhaps the most important fundamental exculpatory evidence in his arsenal of defense. If boys have historically slept in his bed as he told us, and there are enough evidence and witnesses to that, yet not one single one of them claimed and detailed molestation by him, does that not confirm that Michael was just having innocent platonic relationships with the boys, which I emphasize again, is not a crime.
Along, the same logic, if Michael has been quite close with the current accuser, including sleeping in his bed, as all testified, and never molested him before their joint media appearance, why would Michael suddenly start molesting him after their joint video appearance. It not only defies logic and commonsense but defies fundamental biology. I am a social scientist, but I will like to know why and how a dormant pedophiliac gene in Michael suddenly took over and gripped him into the abominable act. The truth is that if Michael is a pedophiliac, the genes would have manifested themselves clearly and unequivocally many times in the inner chambers of his bedroom all these many years. More importantly he would have been molesting this current child long before their joint video appearance.
It is for all the above reasons that I most strongly urge the jury to acquit Michael so that he can go back and continue the many great works he has been doing. I learnt from Jesse Jackson that Michael plans to build a children’s team pack like Neverland Ranch in Africa. I wish him good luck and God’s Guidance in all his future endeavors. But Michael, please do the millions of us who love you dearly a favor – Do not let children in your private places and bedroom next time. This trial has been traumatic not just for you but for all of us who love you. For me you are “Michael, the Great, King of Pop”. This is how history will remember you and there is nothing anybody can do about it. God Bless and Thank you.
© Amechi Okolo, PhD.
May 31, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
