Ellsberg Of The
American Resistance

By Ted Lang
I asked Dr. Daniel Ellsberg this question on Tuesday, November 15th, after he had just completed his lecture to instructors, professors, students and members of the public that were in attendance to hear him speak at William Patterson University in Wayne, New Jersey: Dr. Ellsberg, which bomb do you think will go off first - Fitzgerald bringing another indictment, or the military attack on Syria and Iran? His answer was frightening - he offered that the war would probably come first, initiated in all likelihood as an engineered distraction to negate the effect of the expected upcoming indictments.
Daniel Ellsberg is an American achiever and a TRUE patriot akin to the Spirit of '76 inculcated into our national psyche by the writings and documents of our Founding Fathers. Ellsberg achieved national notoriety when he exposed the "Pentagon Papers" to The New York Times in 1971. Ellsberg is yet another high-credentialed achiever and newsmaker that summarily ignores any and all obstacles thrown in his way to block his getting the truth out to the American people. He is the latest in a growing number of high profile members of the American Resistance, forced to inform the American people by going around the mainstream media.
First, some background on Dan Ellsberg. Ellsberg served in the US Marine Corps, worked in the US Department of Defense and the Department of State, the latter positions focusing on issues relating to Vietnam. He then joined the RAND Corporation in 1967. He was almost immediately assigned to a special project authorized by then-Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. The project was a top secret study detailing the decision-making processes that got US involved in the Vietnam War.
Just as on an ever-increasing basis today, certain leaders and people-in-the-know back then were becoming increasingly outraged and frustrated over the war in Vietnam. A similar outrage is increasing today on a virtually a daily basis concerning Bush's bloodthirsty war-mongering and the horrific carnage he is causing in Iraq. This immoral war has seriously damaged both the American economy and our personal freedoms. The outrage is becoming increasingly intolerable as Bush and his cohorts lie and propagandize day after day after day.
Ellsberg's project became known as the "Pentagon Papers." It exposed the ploy utilized by former President Lyndon Baines Johnson in reporting that US Navy destroyers had been attacked by elements of the North Vietnamese Air Force in the Gulf of Tonkin. That revelation was a bald-faced lie! Congress gave Johnson war-making powers and the Vietnam War was fully underway!
How does this differ from "weapons of mass destruction" today? And Bush didn't even need to prove Iraq and Saddam's involvement. There was, we now know, absolutely no involvement by either Iraq or Saddam in 9-11. There was, we now know, no Gulf of Tonkin attack either!
It was the frustration on the part of patriot Ellsberg that motivated him to risk everything, even incarceration for life. It was this growing anger within him listening to the lies of Johnson, McNamara and Westmoreland that finally caused him to break. He photocopied 7,000 pages of data and presented them to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As usual, the Congress was asleep at the switch and not the least bit interested. But back then, also, there was still some vestige of a "free and independent press."
Ellsberg released the 7,000-page copied study to The New York Times, Washington Post and 17 other newspapers. The American public became aware of the criminal activities planned and executed by Washington, and the contempt our politicians exhibited for human lives and other people's national sovereignty. It exposed our government's lust for wreaking mass murder and destruction upon the people of foreign lands for no real justifiable reason. To spread his message comparing the similarity between then and now, Ellsberg organized his observations and analogies and decided to hit the lecture circuit to initiate public awareness of the never-ceasing and ever-increasing criminality of the American political State.
Before commenting on Dr. Ellsberg's efforts and lecture points, it is worth noting the similarities that should serve as a standard in terms of American citizens and voters relating to their government of, by and for the people. At this time, recall the frustration of former Alabama Governor, George C. Wallace, indicating that there wasn't "a dime's worth of difference" between Democrats and Republicans. That observation obviates the necessity of voting, as both parties are just different sides of the same coin. And observe how that held true in the life and times of Wallace, LBJ, Nixon and Watergate.
The Vietnam War was launched in full by Democratic President Lyndon Johnson's lies concerning a non-existent attack by the Vietnamese Air Force. Consider as well the irony of LBJ and McNamara setting up the American people and Congress citing this phony attack, when a real attack upon our Navy by Israel actually took place in 1967 against the USS Liberty! If Johnson wanted to pick a fight with some nation to generate a profitable war, why didn't he just honestly report the real attack and inform the American people of such? It is obvious that even back then, Israel had total control of American politicians. Israel's excuses that it was a mistake are pure unadulterated nonsense; and this was yet another criminal cover-up by our anti-American pro-Israel Zionist-owned and controlled press.
Yet, there is still another anomaly. Democrat Johnson started the war, yet it was the Republican Nixon administration that was doing its best to silence Ellsberg from blowing the whistle on a Democratic administration, and also making monumental efforts to cover it up! This certainly lends a lot of credibility to the no "dime's worth of difference" observation. It also emphasizes the futility of voting.
Dr. Ellsworth's sobering opening remark set the tone for his briefing: "This is the first case [The Pentagon Papers] where the United States Government sought an injunction against the American press to silence criticism of government operations." He points out that the Nixon administration did their best to intimidate and threaten American newspapers into total silence. Remembering that Ellsworth first took his complaints to the Senate, where that branch of government showed additional complicity along with a rogue Republican administration covering for a rogue Democratic administration, Ellsworth felt he had no other choice but to try airing the criminal government conspiracies in the press.
He offers that Nixon's Attorney General, John N. Mitchell, was shocked over the "wave of civil disobedience exhibited by the American press." The Nixon White House first threatened the newspapers directly, and then targeted the media corporate conglomerates with anti-trust lawsuits. Ellsberg offers that the Nixon White House developed a paranoia offering that "everyone was committing treason against America and the administration." And this statement meant to include even the law firms representing the media!
Does this all sound familiar? Do the paranoiac smears of "unpatriotic," or "cut and run cowards," or outright charges that accusations against the administration are coming from "traitors" to the United States ring a bell? Isn't the same thing going on right now? Isn't anyone not supporting Bush considered a "traitor?"
It would seem that the Bush administration and its sycophants seem to think so. Every time I hear a Rush Limbaugh or a Bill O'Reilly offer that the prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are terrorists and therefore deserve to be tortured and murdered, the latter inhumanity suggested specifically by FOXNews' O'Reilly, I am amazed at their total lack of knowledge about these hapless victims of political human trafficking. Many were simply civilians arbitrarily rounded up; others among them were simply captured by a political opposition force and then SOLD for bounty to American forces manning these prisons.
What legal protections were afforded these prisoners as prescribed by American law? Obviously Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Falwell, Robertson and all the legions of Bush sycophants are ignorant of both due process of law under the United States Constitution, as well as both the foundations and principles of the Geneva Conventions, the latter as old as our Constitution. Who are the accusers? Where and what evidence exists as to their combat or non-combat status? Can they face their accusers? Can they cross-examine them? What specifically are the charges against them? Can they have legal counsel? What about a speedy trial? What ever happened to "name, rank and serial number?" What about Miranda and "the right to remain silent?"
None of these protections of basic human rights mean anything to Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and the rest of the Bush media propaganda gang. And where now is there that spirit of the "free and independent press" that existed in 1971? Judith Miller was cited by Ellsberg as an example of government bullying of the press; more to the point, however, is the use by the Bush White House of Miller to splatter the front pages of The New York Times with the falsehoods regarding Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. This isn't reporting from the "newspaper of record" - it is criminal propaganda that resulted in dead American soldiers and tens of thousands of dead and maimed innocent civilians of an innocent nation.
Ellsberg pointed to similarities between the manufactured and poorly-forged "intelligence documents" related to Niger yellowcake to efforts by E. Howard Hunt to forge false and incriminating documents to be used against Democrats. He headed the effort to break into DNC headquarters in order to photocopy "evidence" to be used for blackmail. Nixon gangsters were looking beyond the Pentagon Papers, and sought to discredit Ellsberg in the same way; via blackmail and character assassination. When all those efforts failed, American government used its trump card: "the law."
Federal prosecutors from the "Justice Department" charged Ellsberg with 12 felony counts, whereupon a guilty verdict carried a possible prison term of 115 years! After the Supreme Court failed to come through for Nixon and found the administration's injunction against 19 newspapers unconstitutional, the Nixon gangsters then resorted to the law and its threat of violence, force and incarceration. In today's "Bush-Über-Alles" environment, Ellsberg might be classified as an "enemy combatant" according to "laws" favored by Limbaugh and O'Reilly. Today, he wouldn't even be allowed to defend himself legally or to be represented by counsel.
Although Ellsberg did not draw an analogy to the media support now available to Bush, support that wasn't available to Nixon, he did note the major difference in terms of the party of opposition having the majority and thereby launching the Nixon impeachment proceedings. He did, however, point to a possible change in political environment coming on the heels of the 2006 Mid-Term elections.
Ellsberg pointed out that the Vietnam War couldn't be won; he offers the same conclusion today with respect to Iraq. He faults himself for waiting to long during the Vietnam War for blowing the whistle that led to the anti-war movement that finally ended the bloody conflict. He is trying to make up for that delay by speaking out actively today.
He decries the lack of Democratic opposition to Bush's imperial war-mongering - and he is especially critical of U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., not only for supporting the war, but for demanding that the conflict be intensified by sending in even more American troops.
Ellsberg opined: "I think it will be a long time before we get out of Iraq, very long, with Democrats or Republicans." This quote was from the same lecture given a couple of days earlier at Columbia High School in Maplewood, New Jersey, and covered by Sarah N. Lynch of the Morris County Daily Record on Sunday, November 13th. Lynch continues to quote Ellsberg: "The [D]emocratic base would be glad to see us out, as I would. That does not mean we are going to get [D]emocratic leaders who are going to give up those bases in Iraq in the midst of those oil fields."
Quoted in the Lynch article and repeated again at the WPU lecture hall, Ellsberg continued: "If there's a terrorist attack, I think the president will get what he wants, and here's what I think he wants. This is my belief. I believe that what he wants is a new Patriot Act that's already been drafted, I feel sure, that will make this Patriot Act look like the Bill of Rights."
Lynch in her article, "Vietnam critic sees new war, same lies," goes on to say, "Other possible goals that Ellsberg believes are in the minds of the administration could also include resorting to military rule on our own soil, imposing a draft on men and women and launching attacks on Syria and Iran."
Offering his opinion on the future of a "free and independent press," Ellsberg related that he foresees a future where the ruthless suppression of journalistic expression will be undertaken in any case where criticism of the administration is even suspected. He offered that presently, there is no "official secrets act." Ellsberg even touched upon Title 18 USC 793 and 794, and identified these as the "Espionage Acts" enacted by the Wilson administration during World War I. He avoided explaining the penalties of Section 794 during wartime.
But Ellsberg pointed out that three categories of criminal acts addressing "leaks" and revelations by the press will soon be invoked to greatly increase prosecutions of reporters for doing what was done when the press exposed the Plame-CIA scandal: the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, a narrower interpretation of privileged communications revelations, and virtually anything concerning nuclear information.
Ellsberg continually reiterated the need for action. "What I and Richard Clark did wrong, is that we waited too long," he laments. Considering the lack of Democratic leadership, increasing evidence of a one party system, an ineffectual media combined with an effective and powerful neoconservative propaganda machine led by Limbaugh and O'Reilly, and the intended ruthlessness and planned suppression of human rights in America, an American Resistance is indeed our only hope. But we may yet luck out - Patrick J. Fitzgerald may be the match that will really ignite the Resistance.
© 2005 All rights reserved
Ted Lang is a political analyst and freelance writer.



This Site Served by TheHostPros