lördag, april 29, 2006

Galen värld, galna ledare - vad gör vi? Det gäller då att inte glömma läxan från 1980-talets El-Salvador


Det amerikanska State Department meddelar idag i CNN att USA går igenom den första fasen av "det långa kriget" där Iran nu står högst upp på dagordningen.


Samtidigt finns det kloka och medkännande människor som tar detta med att "aldrig glömma förintelsen" på största allvar särskilt som terrordåd inträffar dagligen och över nästan hela Irak..


Vad som inte står lika klart är att det är en tydlig amerikansk strategi att sprida terror och splittring för att själva kunna bita sig fast i landet.


Ett exempel. Vi vet hur två brittiska SAS soldater tidigare tagits på bar gärning vid en vägspärr i södra Irak utklädda till araber med hela bilen fylld med explosivt gods. Naturligtvis för att ställa till ett attentat och få olika grupper att skylla på varandra


Amerikanska stulna bilar har också importerats till Irak av CIA förmodlogen för att utnyttjas i egna bilbombdåd.


En amerikansk privat säkerhetsman fångades nyss i Saddams stad Tikrit med hela bilen fylld av sprängmedel.


En väninna i Bagdad hjälpte familjen till en försvunnen taxichaufför att leta efter honom i ett område norr om Bagdad dit han haft en körning. Till slut hittade de hans övergivna bil som irakiska polisen sedan lämnade till den anerikanska militären. Själv hittades han aldrig.


Senare vid några ceremonier i sunnistadsdelen Ahdamia i Bagdad hjälpte människor en syrier och jordanier att skjuta bort deras bil som hade fått motorstopp nära moskén. Då polisen skulle spåra ägaren fann de att bilen var full av sprängämnen och att det var den försvunna taxichauffören som stod som ägare till bilen. Alltså samma övergivna bil som de amerikanska soldaterna forslat bort, hamnade senare i dessa terroristers händer....


Fattiga, krigshärjade människor vet vad det vill säga att drabbas av den amerikanska krigsmaskinen. Men i Sverige stationerar vi soldater i Afghanistan under NATOs befäl, alltmedan islamofobin breder ut sig och vår svenska demokrati inskränks.


Men i irakiska Falluja och Bakuba, hur måtte det inte kännas för människor där att nu återigen tvingas uppleva den amerikanska krigsmaskinens dödande. Våld, våldtäkt, fängslade civila - och skam.


Under det andra världskriget utnyttjade nazisterna just denna taktik att under sin marsch österut låta dödsmiliser härja brutalt bakom stridslinjerna för att bryta ner befolkningens kollektiva moral och motstånd. Ett medvetet folkmord där minst en femtedel fick sätta livet till.


När samma strategi tillämpas i Irak då skyller man på terror utifrån. Vilket på sitt sätt också är sant. Att sprida terror tjänar båda dessa parters syften Titt som tätt dyker det upp en film på någon i sammanhanget känd hemsida där folk varnas för kommande attacker. Där ingen egentligen vet vem som ligger bakom


Samtidigt har USA låtit upprätta irakiska dödsmiliser av salvadoransk modell genom två av sina främsta terrorexperter från 1980-talets Latinamerika, James Steele och Steven Casteel. Så äger också otaliga nattliga räder rum i dagens Bagdad vilka utmynnar i torterade och dödade civila i syfte att splittra och paralysera stadens befolkning. Särskilt drabbade är de grupper som står för det största motståndet.


USA måste dra sig ut ur Irak omedelbart och innan landet fullständigt rasar samman. Detta önskar 9 av 10 iraker och en majoritet av den amerikanska befolkningen liksom deras soldater. Åtminstone det vore en amerikansk god gärning.



A lesson unlearned in El Salvador

by Derrick Z. Jackson, Globe Columnist April 26, 2006


AS AUXILIARY bishop of San Salvador, Gregorio Rosa Chavez wonders if the United States learned anything from its murderous meddling in his nation. He remembers reading a magazine article shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, about how Americans surround themselves with information but much of it ''frivolous and superfluous." He said the article talked about how such shallow knowledge leads to US foreign policy being based on the moment, ''only looking at our navel as if the world ended at the border with Mexico."


Rosa Chavez wondered if the attacks would wake up the United States to look beyond the navel. He wondered if Americans would truly begin to ponder the question of ''Why do they hate us?" After the unprovoked invasion of Iraq under false pretenses in 2003, the answer was a terrible no.


''Pope John Paul called the war a 'defeat for humanity,' " Rosa Chavez said. ''The pope gave his condolences to the American people for Sept. 11. But we also needed to enter a new understanding that we are one world where we only have a future together if we get rid of barriers and walls. Preemptive war makes no sense . . . I worry the US will have to ask again, 'Why do they hate us?' "


Rosa Chavez was in Cambridge last week to receive the Romero Truth Award from Centro Presente, a Latino immigrant advocacy organization. The award is named for Oscar Arnulfo Romero, the Salvadoran archbishop who was assassinated in 1980, presumably by a right-wing death squad. The assassination was part of a 1980-1992 civil war between leftist guerrillas and a US-backed right-wing government that resulted in at least 75,000 deaths and thousands more disappeared.


Rosa Chavez said Iraq means that El Salvador is a lesson unlearned. The Reagan and first Bush administrations gave the Salvadoran government $6 billion in economic and military aid during the war. Rosa Chavez and the Catholic church condemned atrocities on both sides but was often threatened by the government because its pleas for human rights for peasants were seen as too far to the left.


No amount of killings mattered to anti-communist hard-liners in Washington, not even the murders of four Maryknoll nuns from the United States and six Jesuit priests. One such hard-liner was then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney. Intelligence documents released in 1993 indicated that Cheney opposed attempts by members of Congress to withhold military aid to El Salvador during that government's slothful investigation of the murder of the priests. In a 1989 appearance on ABC's ''This Week with David Brinkley," Cheney claimed there was ''no indication at all" that the Salvadoran government or the army were involved.


Documents and soldier confessions in the mid- and late-1990s showed that the killings of the priests and nuns were directly tied to the military, and the Reagan administration suppressed and overlooked intelligence on state-sponsored terror links. As late as 1990, US military officers were training well-to-do Salvadorans linked to death squads.


A decade later, Vice President Cheney turned that legacy upside down, trumping up discredited intelligence to invade Iraq. In the 2004 vice presidential debate, he had the nerve to use El Salvador as an example of what would happen in Afghanistan and Iraq. He boasted, ''we held free elections. I was there as an observer on behalf of the Congress. . . . And today El Salvador is a whale of a lot better because we held free elections."


This is after he refused to ''observe" how we sponsored so many of the 75,000 deaths over the 12 years of the Reagan and first Bush administrations.


Rosa Chavez, part of the religious vanguard that risked life for peace and elections, remembers a whale of a lot more than Cheney, enough to fear for the future of Iraq. He remembers US ambassadors denying witness protection and cruelly interrogating courageous people who came forward with information on the state-sponsored terror.


''It was really terrible because (US) politics were not based on values and human rights," he said. "During the war, I had to receive many US delegations, and frequently I got the impression they really did not care about the people. It was painful."



Missa inte dessa otroligt avslöjande dokumentärer gjorda av BBC om mardrömmen som USregeringen vill skydda oss från. Ett skydd lika mardrömslikt som själva mardrömmen


The Power of Nightmares -

Part I
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11091.htm

Part II
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11092.htm

Part III
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11093.htm



The 50 Billion Dollar Robbery: of reconstruction money

Following the Iraq war, billions of dollars of Iraq's money was directed to American companies to rebuild the country. But much of it remains unaccounted for, and Peter Marshall has been investigating startling allegations of post war profiteering.

14 Minutes
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12389.htm



Dark Pearl

By John S. Hatch


(short)
PNAC (Project for a New American Century), was the think tank which had been bubbling and percolating and sending up sulfurous fumes since even before the time of Ronald Reagan


Now it just needed the right leader to come along, plus, please, please, please, a ‘new Pearl Harbor event’ to galvanize citizens into stupefied compliance, a PNAC panic, and their gift to the world could be wrapped in just the right colorful tissues of patriotism, freedom, democracy, and Christian values.


A flag-wrapped American Crusade for global domination. And George was just the guy to deliver the package, which actually contained those usual staples of American domestic and foreign polity:


Banality, Bullshit, Bullets, and Blood. That was the real 4-B Plan for the New American Century that its patient proponents had waited so long to implement.


And they didn’t have to wait much longer. In George they had their man at last. Already plans were in place to invade Iraq, Syria, Iran, plans George liked very much, especially that first destination. ‘They (iraqis) tried to kill my Daddy!’ Bastards!


It worked. 9-II was the perfect, prayed-to-Jesus-for PNAC Pearl. Well, the pearl wasn’t quite faultless;


When World Trade Center buildings one, two and seven came down in ways consistent with controlled demolition and in defiance of any other scientific explanation (the odds of even one building collapsing naturally in that manner even after such an attack have been calculated at billions to one),


At a time when New York and Washington airspace was left unguarded (that the White House, Pentagon, Washington Monument, and millions of people in Washington and New York would accidentally be left unprotected only on that coincidental occasion simply defies logic), there was no turning back. It was show-time. It was blow time.


Did you notice perchance how quickly evidence from crime scene ‘Ground Zero’ was removed and destroyed? How the White House resisted every reasonable call for an inquiry into the disaster, and when that proved impossible because of public opinion, how did its best to strangle it by denying personnel and funds and by so narrowly defining its mandate that it doesn’t even answer to the fate of Building 7?


Anyway, it was time for Shock and Awe, American style, without delay. First an ugly orgy of pure destruction in Afghanistan as if to bomb an unfortunate stone-age country back to, well the First Neolithic age, one supposes. Five-hundred pound bombs and cluster bombs cannot distinguish between the innocent and the guilty, and nor can bullets in the control of those who don’t care who gets hurt .


And of course the use of depleted uranium (half-life: 4.5 billion years) is a crime against humanity in itself. There would be many such crimes amid empty talk of freedom and democracy. Death and lies. Lies and death. Banality, Bullshit, Bullets and Blood.


And it was as if despite the tough cowboy rhetoric, Osama bin Laden was worth a lot more alive than dead to Bush administration after all,


And soon the President couldn’t stifle a yawn whenever the ‘Evildoer’ was mentioned. His real ambitions lay elsewhere, where the bastards had tried to kill his Daddy, who killed a heck of a lot of other peoples’ Daddies.


The "shock ‘n awe" blowing up Iraqi families (in the name of freedom and democracy, and liberation, of course) were no more consequential than providing a fireworks display for the amusement of Amerikaner Ubermenschen on the ground and those lapping it up on Fox or CNN.


And a rapid slide it was. And in America, even before 9-11 occurred, even as put options were being taken, that is, individuals with inside knowledge were betting massively that those companies’ shares would soon lose value,


Plans had been made to invade Iraq massive lies had been invented (as Goebbels taught, the bigger the lie, the better its chances of being believed), a propaganda machine greased,


Jesus was bonked on the head and snatched on board by the Christian far-right Falwellian loonies and other ‘good-doers’,


Iraqi oil assets were tentatively divided up on paper, and it was show time.


...Hey, everything changed, remember? Well it sure did. And if you thought that torture doesn’t exist in a domestic gulag system that has swallowed up more prisoners than any other nation on earth, you would be quite mistaken...

===
U.S. War Spending to Rise 44% to $9.8 Bln a Month, Report Says

tisdag, april 25, 2006

John Pilger om dödsskvadronerna och Fisk om att världsläget aldrig varit farligare och instämmer om dödsmiliserna samt Scott Ritters syn på DUvapen

JOHN PILGER om en gammal taktik som ska vinna Irakkriget åt George W Bush i Aftonbladet Kultur 9 maj i översättning av Tor Wennerberg


Inne i hissarna på hotell Hilton i New York visades CNN på en liten tv-skärm som man inte kunde undgå att titta på. Irak var förstanyhet; uttalanden om ett ”inbördeskrig” och ”sekteristiskt våld” upprepades oupphörligt. Det var som om den amerikanska invasionen aldrig hade ägt rum och som om de tiotusentals civila dödsfall som amerikanerna bär ansvar för vore ett surrealistiskt påhitt.


Irakierna var själlösa araber som ansattes av religion, etnisk söndring och behovet av att spränga sig själva i bitar. Salvelsefulla marionettpolitiker ställdes upp till parad utan att det så mycket som antyddes att deras exercisplats var belägen innanför murarna till en amerikansk fästning.


Och när man gick ut ur hissen följde detta bedrägliga prat efter en till ens rum, till hotellets gym, till flygplatsen, till nästa flygplats och nästa land. Sådan är den amerikanska mediepropagandans makt, en propaganda som ”penetrerar elektroniskt” med sin motsvarighet till diktaturstaternas partilinje, som Edward Said poängterade i boken Kultur och imperialism. Partilinjen ändrades häromdagen.


I nästan tre år har den gått ut på att al-Qaida är den drivande kraften bakom ”upproret”, som leds av Abu Musab Zarqawi, en blodtörstig jordanier som uppenbarligen höll på att trimmas för det slags demonstatus som Saddam Hussein åtnjuter.


Det spelade ingen roll att Zarqawi aldrig hade setts i livet eller att bara en bråkdel av ”upprorsmakarna” var anhängare till al-Qaida. För amerikanerna var Zarqawis uppgift att avleda uppmärksamheten från det som nästan alla irakier motsätter sig: den brutala angloamerikanska ockupationen av deras land.


Nu när Zarqawi har ersatts av ”sekteristiskt våld” och ”inbördeskrig” handlar den stora nyheten om sunnimuslimers angrepp på shiamuslimska moskéer och basarer. Den verkliga nyheten, som inte rapporteras i CNN:s ”huvudfåra”, är att Salvadoralternativet har plockats fram i Irak.


Med detta avses den terrorkampanj vilken bedrivs av dödsskvadroner som beväpnas och utbildas av USA och som attackerar såväl sunni- som shiamuslimer. Målet är att starta ett riktigt inbördeskrig och bryta sönder Irak, vilket var Bushadministrationens ursprungliga krigsmål.


Inrikesministeriet i Bagdad, som står under CIA:s kontroll, styr de viktigaste dödsskvadronerna. Deras medlemmar är inte uteslutande shiamuslimer, som myten påstår. De mest brutala är de sunnistyrda specialpoliskommandona, som leds av tidigare högt uppsatta officerare i Saddams Baathparti.


Dessa enheter upprättades och utbildades av ”upprorsbekämpningsexperter” från CIA, däribland veteraner från CIA:s terroroperationer i Centralamerika på 1980-talet, inte minst El Salvador.


I sin nya bok Empire’s Workshop (Metropolitan Books) beskriver den amerikanske historikern Greg Grandin Salvadoralternativet på följande sätt: ”När han väl kommit till makten slog Reagan till hårt mot Centralamerika, och lät i praktiken de mest hängivna militaristerna i sin regering utforma och verkställa politiken.


I El Salvador betalade de ut en miljon dollar om dagen för att finansiera en dödlig upprorsbekämpningskampanj … Under Reagans två presidentperioder dödade USA:s allierade i Centralamerika sammantaget över 300 000 människor; hundratusentals människor blev under samma tid torterade, medan miljoner drevs i landsflykt.”


Även om Reaganadministrationen gav upphov till de nuvarande Bushiterna, som också kallas de ”neokonservativa”, så etablerades mönstret tidigare än så. I Vietnam mördade dödsskvadroner som utbildades, beväpnades och styrdes av CIA uppemot 50 000 människor i samband med Operation Phoenix. I mitten av 1960-talet, i Indonesien, ställde CIA-officerare samman ”dödslistor” som användes under general Suhartos mordorgie i samband med att han tog över makten.


Efter invasionen 2003 var det bara en tidsfråga innan denna vördnadsvärda ”policy” skulle tillämpas i Irak. Enligt den undersökande journalisten Max Fuller (National Review Online) lärde sig CIA:s främsta ansvarige för inrikesministeriets dödsskvadroner ”sin hantering i Vietnam innan han gick vidare till att leda USA:s militära insats i El Salvador”.


Professor Grandin nämner ytterligare en veteran från Centralamerika vars jobb nu är att ”utbilda en skoningslös upprorsbekämpningsstyrka bestående av råskinn med ett förflutet i Baathpartiet”. Ytterligare en, säger Fuller, är ökänd för att ha ”producerat dödslistor”.


En hemlig milis som styrs av amerikanerna är Facilities Protection Service, som har varit ansvarig för bombattacker. Fuller drar följande slutsats: ”De brittiska och amerikanska specialstyrkorna, i samarbete med de [av USA skapade] underrättelsetjänsterna i Iraks försvarsministerium, fabricerar motståndsrörelsens bombningar av shiamuslimer.”


Den 16 mars rapporterade Reuters om arresteringen av en amerikansk ”säkerhetskonsult” som stoppades med vapen och sprängmedel i sin bil. Förra året blev två britter utklädda till araber stoppade med en bil fullastad med vapen och sprängmedel; brittiska styrkor forcerade murarna till fängelset i Basra för att rädda dem.


Boston Globe rapporterade nyligen: ”FBI:s antiterrorismenhet har startat en omfattande utredning av USA-baserade stöldligor efter att ha upptäckt att en del av de fordon som använts i dödliga bilbombningar i Irak, inklusive attacker som dödade amerikanska soldater och irakiska civila, förmodligen hade stulits i Förenta staterna, enligt högt uppsatta regeringsföreträdare.”


Som sagt har allt detta prövats tidigare – precis som försöken att förbereda den amerikanska allmänheten på en skändlig attack mot Iran påminner om de påhittade historierna om massförstörelsevapen i Irak. Om den attacken genomförs så kommer det inte att ges någon förvarning, ingen krigsförklaring, ingen sanning. Det vore knappast förvånande om mina medpassagerare i hissen på hotell Hilton, som stod och stirrade på CNN, inte förstod någonting av det som händer i Mellanöstern, eller Latinamerika, eller någon annanstans.


De är isolerade. Ingenting förklaras. Kongressen håller tyst. Demokraterna håller på att tyna bort. Och de friaste medierna i världen förolämpar allmänheten dagligen. Som Voltaire uttryckte det: ”De som kan få dig att tro på absurditeter kan få dig att begå skändligheter.



http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12137.htm
TONY JONES: Now, unless you've changed your position in recent days, the one thing that you and President Bush agree on is there's not going to be a civil war in Iraq.


ROBERT FISK: Yeah, I listened to Bush. It made me doubt myself when I heard him say that. I still go along and say what I said before - Iraq is not a sectarian society, but a tribal society. People are intermarried. Shiites and Sunnis marry each other. It's not a question of having a huge block of people here called Shiites and a huge block of people called Sunnis any more than you can do the same with the United States, saying Blacks are here and Protestants are here and so on.


But certainly, somebody at the moment is trying to provoke a civil war in Iraq. Someone wants a civil war. Some form of militias and death squads want a civil war. There never has been a civil war in Iraq. The real question I ask myself is: who are these people who are trying to provoke the civil war? Now the Americans will say it's Al Qaeda, it's the Sunni insurgents. It is the death squads. Many of the death squads work for the Ministry of Interior.


Who runs the Ministry of Interior in Baghdad? Who pays the Ministry of the Interior? Who pays the militia men who make up the death squads? We do, the occupation authorities. I'd like to know what the Americans are doing to get at the people who are trying to provoke the civil war. It seems to me not very much.


We don't hear of any suicide bombers being stopped before they blow themselves up. We don't hear of anybody stopping a mosque getting blown up. We're not hearing of death squads all being arrested. Something is going very, very wrong in Baghdad. Something is going wrong with the Administration.


Mr Bush says, "Oh, yes, sure, I talk to the Shiites and I talk to the Sunnis." He's talking to a small bunch of people living behind American machine guns inside the so-called Green Zone, the former Republican palace of Saddam Hussein, which is surrounded by massive concrete walls like a crusader castle.


These people do not and cannot even leave this crusader castle. If they want to leave to the airport, they're helicoptered to the airport. They can't even travel on the airport road. What we've got at the moment is a little nexus of people all of whom live under American protection and talk on the telephone to George W Bush who says, "I've been talking to them and they have to choose between chaos and unity." These people can't even control the roads 50 metres from the Green Zone in which they work.


TONY JONES: OK.

ROBERT FISK: There's total chaos now in Iraq.


TONY JONES: Let's go back, if we can, to start answering that question about who wants civil war. Back one week to the bombing of the golden shrine in Samarra. Now, most people do think the only people with reasons for doing that would be the Al Qaeda in Iraq group led by al-Zarqawi. You don't agree?


ROBERT FISK: Well, I don't know if al-Zarqawi is alive. You know, al-Zarqawi did exist before the American Anglo-American invasion. He was up in the Kurdish area, which was not actually properly controlled by Saddam. But after that he seems to have disappeared. We know there's an identity card that pops up. We know the Americans say we think we've recognised him on a videotape. Who recognises him on a videotape? How many Americans have ever met al-Zarqawi?


Al-Zarqawi's mother died more than 12 months ago and he didn't even send commiserations or say "I'm sorry to hear that". His wife of whom he was very possessive is so poor she has to go out and work in the family town of Zarqa. Hence the name Zarqawi. I don't know if al-Zarqawi is alive or exists at the moment. I don't know if he isn't a sort of creature invented in order to fill in the narrative gaps, so to speak.


What is going on in Iraq at the moment is extremely mysterious. I go to Iraq and I can't crack this story at the moment. Some of my colleagues are still trying to, but can't do it. It's not as simple as it looks. I don't believe we've got all these raving lunatics wandering around blowing up mosques. There's much more to this than meets the eye. All of these death squads that move around are part of the security forces. In some cases they are Shiite security forces or clearly Sunni security forces.


When the Iraqi army go into Sunni cities they are Shiite soldiers going in. We are not making this clear. Iraqi troops, we've got an extra battalion. The Iraqi army is building up. The Iraqi army is split apart. Somebody is operating these people. I don't know who they are. It's not as simple as we're making it out to be.


What is this thing when Bush says we have to choose between chaos and unity? Who wants to choose chaos? Is it really the case that all of these Iraqis that fought together for eight years against the Iranians, Shiites and Sunnies together in the long massive murderous Somme-like war between the Iranians and Iraqis - suddenly all want to kill each other? Why because that's something wrong with Iraqis? I don't think so. They are intelligent, educated people. Something is going seriously wrong in Baghdad.


TONY JONES: Can we look at one thing that might possibly be wrong, the Sunnis feel like they are being left out of the political equation. The Shias could end up running the majority of the government because they are indeed in the majority in a democracy.


ROBERT FISK: They do run the Government now. The Shiites do run the Government.

TONY JONES: Indeed. Couldn't that precisely be one of the reasons for the violence?


ROBERT FISK: Because the Sunnis don't have power anymore? But we've been saying this if the start. Don't you remember that after 2003 the Anglo-American invasion, the resistance started against the Americans and we were told they were Saddam remnants, 'dead-enders', that was the phrase used. Not anymore, because there are 40,000 insurgents, but that was the phase used at the time. They were Sunnis. They didn't like the fact they didn't have power. Then we captured Saddam and Paul Bremer, the number two pro-Consule in Baghdad, says, "Oh, we've got him," and everything was going to be OK.


And then the insurgency got worse still. The reason was because people who wanted to join the insurgency feared that if they beat him out he might come back. Well, the moment Saddam was captured, they knew they could join the insurgency and Saddam wouldn't come back. I mean, there is something wrong in the narrative sequence that we've been given. You know, the idea that the Sunni community is suddenly sacrificing themselves en mass, strapping explosive belts to themselves and blowing themselves up all over Iraq because they don't have power anymore is a very odd reflection.


I think what is going on among the Sunni community is much simpler. The Sunnis are not fighting the Americans because they don't have power and they're not fighting the Americans just to get them out - and they will get them out eventually. They are fighting the Americans so that they will say, "We have a right to power because we fought the occupying forces and you, the Shiites, did not," which is why it's very important to discover now that Moqtada al-Sadr, who has an ever-increasing power base among the Shiite community, is himself threatening to fight the British and Americans.


Now, if the Shiites and Sunnies come together, as they did in the 1920s in the insurgency against the British, then we are finished in Iraq. And that will mean that Iraq actually will be united.


TONY JONES: But, Robert Fisk, what's is happening now, by all accounts and, indeed, the accounts of these Washington Post reporters who've been into the morgue and report hundreds of bodies of Sunnies who evidently have been garroted or suffocated or shot, are all saying that Moqtada al-Sadr's thugs have actually taken these people away and murdered them. That was in revenge for the Golden Shrine bombing.


ROBERT FISK: Yeah, look, in August, I went into the same mortuary and found out that 1,000 people had died in one month in July. And most of those people who had died were split 50/50 between the Sunnies and the Shiites, but most of them, including women who'd been blindfolded and hands tied behind their backs - I saw the corpses - were both Sunnies and Shiites. Now, I'm not complaining that the Washington Post got it wrong - I'm sure there are massacres going on by Shiites - but I think they are going on by militias on both sides.


What I'd like to know is who is running the Interior Ministry? Who is paying the Interior Ministry? Who is paying the gunmen who work for the Interior Ministry? I go into the Interior Ministry in Baghdad and I see lots and lots of armed men wearing black leather. Who is paying these guys? Well, we are, of course. The money isn't falling out of the sky. It's coming from the occupation powers and Iraqi's Government, which we effectively run because, as we know, they can't even create a constitution without the American and British ambassadors being present.


We need to look at this story in a different light. That narrative that we're getting - that there are death squads and that the Iraqis are all going to kill each other, the idea that the whole society is going to commit mass suicide - is not possible, it's not logical. There is something else going on in Iraq. Don't ask me to...


TONY JONES: Alright. But...

ROBERT FISK: Yeah, go on.


TONY JONES: No, it does seem to be impossible to explain, but, of course, this is exactly what people were saying in Bosnia before that war started up - that people were too intermarried, that you couldn't separate the community.


ROBERT FISK: Iraqi is not Bosnia. Iraqi is not Bosnia. Iraqi is not Bosnia. Iraqi is not Bosnia. We discovered here in Lebanon - and this city I'm talking to you from - that, during the civil war, which lasted from 1975 to 1990 and killed 150,000 people, that there were many outside powers involved in promoting death squads and militias here, and paying militias, not just Arab powers, but European powers were involved in stirring the pot in Lebanon.


I think we're being very naive. Just because I can't give you the detail, like, of who ordered this death squad, doesn't prevent us saying that something is wrong with the narrative we're being given the press, from the West, from the Americans, from the Iraqi Government. There is something going wrong.


Iraqis are not suicidal people. They don't go around blowing up mosques every day. It's not a natural thing for them to do. It's never happened before. I can't say to you, "Well, ok, here is the person who killed this person, or here's the person who left this explosive truck." All I am saying to you is that it is time we said, "Hang on a minute, this is not how it looks."


TONY JONES: What if you put Iran into this equation, because, as we all know, Iran is under tremendous pressure from the West and particularly from the United States at the moment. It has links to these Shia militias and, possibly, links too, to these people you are talking about in the Interior Ministry.


ROBERT FISK: No, no, no, that's wrong. The Iranians link is with the Iraqi Government. The main parties in the government of Iraq which have been elected, who are there now dealing with the Americans, these are the representatives of Iran. Moqtada al-Sadr is irrelevant to Iran. Iranians are already effectively controlling Iraq because the two major power blocks, the two major parties who were elected and who Bush has just been talking to, these are effectively the representatives of Tehran. That's the point. Iran doesn't need to get involved in violence in Iraq.


TONY JONES: Unless the pressure from the United States ratchets up on Iran to the point where there are military threats against these nuclear facilities. Could it not therefore create havoc in Iraq?


ROBERT FISK: Well, you could say the same about Syria, too, couldn't you? And, of course the Americans are also accusing Syria of supporting the insurgents or letting them cross the border. But I think it it's much more complicated than that. For example, my sources in this area, who are pretty good, tell me that the Americans have already talked to the Syrians and are trying to do a deal with them to try and get the Syrians to help them over the insurgency and the price of Syria's help, I'm told, is that the Americans will ease off on the UN committee of inquiry into the murder of ex-prime minister Rafiq Hariri, here in Beirut, only a few hundred metres from here, on the 14th February last year.


You know, if the Americans are going to get out of Iraq - and they must get out, they will - they need the help of Iran and Syria. And I think you'll find that certain elements within the State Department are already trying to work on that. Now, we hear the rhetoric coming from Bush. I mean, he's got an absolute black-hole chaos in Iraq, he's got Afghanistan - not an inspiration to the world, it's been taken over effectively by narco warlords, many who work for Karzai, the man who's just been making jokes about the Afghan welcome for Bush - and Bush wants another conflict with Iran?


I don't think the Americans are in any footing or any ability, military or otherwise, to have another war or to have another crisis in that region. They're in the deepest hole politically, militarily and economically in Iraq. The fact that the White House and the Pentagon and the State Department seem to be in a state of denial doesn't change that. We had Condoleezza Rice here - literally in that building behind me - a few days ago saying that there are great changes taking place in the Middle East - optimistically.


Well, sure, there is a mosque war going on in Iraq with the Americans up to their feet in the sand, there's an Iranian crisis, or so we're told, the Saudis are frightened the Iraq war will spill over into Saudi Arabia, the Egyptians don't know how to reconcile Syria and Lebanon, there are increasing sectarian tensions here in Lebanon.


You would think that someone is building what used to be called Potemkin villages, you know, these extraordinary things that Catherine the Great's court favourites use to build, facades of villages, so that everything looked nice in Russia even though things were barbarous behind the facades.


I mean, this is a barbarous world we're living in now in the Middle East. It's never been so dangerous here, either for journalists or soldiers but most of all for Arabs. Hence the thousands of people in the mortuary.



By Nathan Diebenow
about Scott Ritter


03/09/06 "Lone Star Iconoclast" -- -- AUSTIN — Scott Ritter, the former United Nations weapons inspector who served during President Bill Clinton’s administration, had some strong words for people who call for President Bush’s impeachment.

Ritter explained that more people should be held accountable for supporting the current war in Iraq than the Bush Administration, including members of the Clinton administration, congressmen, senators, the U.S. media, and the American people.

“The Bush administration has committed felony after felony after felony by going into Iraq. There’s no doubt about that,” Ritter said, while describing a meeting he had with Democrats on Capitol Hill on the issue of impeachment. “But I say, ‘Timeout, guys.... We’re culpable.’”

Guidepost

At a recent activism workshop in Austin, Ritter said that the American people should use the U.S. Constitution as a guidepost for making decisions with regard to U.S. foreign policy.

“When we say, ‘Bush administration, do it yourself. Clinton administration, do it yourself,’ I say, ‘No. America, do it yourself,’” said Ritter. “We the people of the United States of America need to reflect on the preamble to that constitution.

It’s our constitution. It’s our country. This is our problem. The only way we are going to resolve it is to infuse ourselves with a sense of citizenship that has sadly not been in this country today.”

Ritter said that the American people seem to behave more like consumers than citizens: “We want the easy fix. We want the government to solve the problem for us. That’s not how democracy works.

Democracy is a tough, dirty business. And it takes a lot of work. It requires citizens to invest themselves. And we the people have failed egregiously.”

Sponsored by Tour of Duty, Ritter’s talk was moderated by talk radio host Jack Blood before a packed sanctuary at St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Austin. Earlier in the day, a conference was held on the church grounds devoted to linking spirituality and activism.

Iran War Looming

Ritter noted that after the three-year U.S.-led occupation of Iraq, the next challenge to the American people is finding the truth about Iran’s nuclear energy program.

Though he is skeptical of Iran’s claim that its civilian energy program is peaceful, Ritter said that no one has yet to supply hard evidence to the public that shows Iran has a nuclear weapons program.

Still, he said he supports a presence of viable, capable U.N. weapons inspectors as an alternative to rushing “hell nell” toward armed conflict with Iran.

Ritters överraskande kommentar om läget i Irak (kommentarer vi brukar få om "vi inte la oss i politiken...) Och om Kuwait som våra irakiska vänner brukar berätta.

Ritter explained that none of the sectarian violence currently going on in Iraq should have taken anybody by surprise because the only thing holding the three infighting ethnic and religious groups (Kurds, Shi’a, and Sunnis) together since the end of the Ottoman Empire after World War I was Saddam Hussein’s Baathist Party.

“People say, ‘Why was Saddam Hussein so brutal against the Shi’a?’ Because if he wasn’t, you’d have the same problem you’d see in the streets today. ‘Why was Saddam Hussein so brutal against the tribes?’

If he wasn’t, you’d have the same problem you’d have today. ‘Why did Saddam Hussein repress Kurdish independence?’ Because if he didn’t, you’d see the same problems you’d see in Iraq today. It’s all predictable,” said Ritter.

He told the audience that the United States used Saddam only when it was convenient, such as during the Iraq/Iran war in order to keep Iran’s Islamic fundamentalist government at bay.

The Gulf War, Ritter said, however, was the result of poor communication between the United States and her ally Iraq due to the first Bush administration’s heavy, narrow focus on the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

In March 1990, then-President George H. W. Bush sent a delegation to Iraq led by Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kansas) that embraced Hussein’s government during a spat between Iraq and Israel,

but by October 1990, Saddam invaded and occupied its southern oil-rich neighbor Kuwait, Ritter explained. That summer, Hussein had asked Washington three times whether or not he had the green light to take land away from Kuwait over a border dispute.

All three times, Washington told Hussein, “America has no position,” according to Ritter.

Kuwait Invasion

The initial response inside the U.S. government toward the Iraqi invasion was “good” because “[e]verybody understood that Kuwait was doing some bad things in terms of slant drilling and holding Iraq’s feet to the fire on financial issues,” Ritter explained.

“And the feeling was that if Iraq had limited its incursion by simply taking over the Ramadi oil fields, controlling the Emir’s palace, and occupying the (nearby) islands — there wouldn’t have been a problem.”

Instead, Hussein moved into Kuwait City and threatened Saudi Arabia’s oil fields, which forced President H.W. Bush to raise his rhetoric even harsher by comparing Hussein to the former leader of Nazi Germany Adolph Hitler, said Ritter,

adding that in doing so, the president covered up the complicated nature of the situation from the American people to wage war against Iraq.

“We knew there were nuclear weapons and biological weapons, but while we had our chemical protective gear, we had our little magic pills, [and] we had our inoculations, there wasn’t a big fear factor,” said Ritter, who served during the Gulf War as a Marine.

“There seemed to be more fear about Iraq’s nuclear weapons capabilities in 2003 when they didn’t have them than in 1991 when they did have them.”

Life Or Death

To further the case for the Gulf War, there were charges that the Iraqi leader was a “personification of evil” who gassed his own people, namely the Iraqi Kurds.

As Ritter explained, during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, the Iraqi Kurds switched allegiance to Iran and fought against Iraq.

At a battle over a dam where electricity was created to power Baghdad, Iraq used a mustard agent to repel Iranian soldiers from a hill top. When the Iranians counterattacked with a cyanide-based blood agent, the Kurdish rebels were killed in the middle.

As a preventative measure in “a life or death struggle,” as Ritter termed it, Hussein gassed at least three Kurdish villages, which is not the same as a systematic extermination of defenseless people such as the six million Jews in Europe who died under Hitler’s reign, Ritter noted.

This weaponized blood agent may have resulted in the deaths of 7,000 Kurds, he explained, during a war in which about a million people died from conventional weapons like artillery and machine guns used by Iran, a country of 60 million people, and Iraq, a country of 23 million people.

“I’m not condoning the Iraqi actions, but we need to put it in perspective,” said Ritter, adding: “With the exception of nuclear weapons, a Marine corps rifle company with an unlimited supply of ammunition will kill far more people than chemical weapons, biological weapons, or long-range ballistic missiles.

I mean, but we don’t call a Marine corps rifle company ‘a weapon of mass destruction.’ Maybe we should.”

Deal With Saddam

At the same time in the 1980s, Ritter noted, Donald Rumsfeld delivered assurances from the United States to Hussein to make it clear that the U.S. government sided with Iraq,

but all the while members of Congress condemned the Iraqi leader’s use of chemical weapons on the Kurds, even as the U.S. government was secretly supplying Iran with ballistic missiles for use against Iraq’s army.

“So we did condemn Saddam from using chemical weapons but said, ‘No problem, you keep doing it.’ Why? Because it’s good for us. It helps America contain Iran. The problem is ... we now have to deal with the reality of Saddam,” Ritter noted.

The tactics with which to “deal with Saddam” after the Gulf War meant political trouble for President H.W. Bush because the American leader left “the new Hitler” in power for the security of the region

instead of ousting him like he had promised at the outset to the American people, according to Ritter.

“We needed Saddam Hussein to die, so that [President H.W. Bush] wouldn’t be opened up to political criticism here at home. But the war is over. The troops are home. How are we going to get rid of this guy?” explained Ritter.

The answer was a policy of containment through which a series of economic sanctions was arranged to continue as long as Hussein stayed in power, despite a U.N. Security Council resolution that called for the sanctions to be lifted once Iraq disarmed itself of weapons of mass destruction.

Enter Scott Ritter and his frustration with the U.S. government during the implementation of Security Council Resolution 287 to inspect and disarm Iraq’s weapons.

“A successful inspection regime would be the enemy of American policy. That is something that I as an inspector found since day one,” said Ritter. “When I showed up, it was obvious that the United States did not want the weapons inspections program to succeed. They were afraid.

“When I reported to the CIA in 1992 that we could account for all the Iraqi nuclear capability, that was a finding they did not want because we could account for missiles, but right now, there was a possibility we could account for chemicals.

If we could account for chemicals, then we can account for biologicals, and then we can account for nuclear for Iraq to disarm.

Ritter told his audience in Austin that the fact that the U.S. government rejected the inspectors’ findings, instead of saying, “Hoorray! Good job inspectors,” meant it didn’t want them to succeed in any step of the disarming process.

Then, the director of the CIA said before the U.S. Congress that 200 missiles were still in Iraq, a number the CIA head made up, according to Ritter.

“Two hundred missiles that physically can’t exist in Iraq. Where did you get that number? You made it up. Ladies and gentlemen, it should be clear to everybody,” he said.

“This isn’t about Bush bashing. Have you noticed the time frame I’m talking about? The majority of my life with the U.S. government took place between 1992 to 1998 during the Clinton presidency. This isn’t about Republicans. This isn’t about Democrats. It’s about America, about American politics, about going down the wrong path.”

Act Like Saddam

Ritter said that the last three presidential administrations deliberately misled the American people about the reality of Iraq.

“When people say we didn’t find any weapons in Iraq in 2003, I’m here to tell you that, no, it wasn’t a mistake,” said the former U.N. weapons inspector. “The CIA knew in 1993 that there were no nuclear weapons programs in Iraq.

The CIA knew in 1994 that there were not chemical weapons in Iraq. The CIA knew in 1995 that there were no biological weapons in Iraq.

“The CIA knew that Iraq had been disarmed, but that’s not the CIA’s job,” he added. “The CIA’s job is not to disarm Iraq but to create the conditions for the removal of Saddam Hussein.

This is important because that same pattern of deception that you saw in Iraq is taking place today when it comes to the issue of Iran.”

Until 2000, the United State waited for someone like a Sunni general who could be like Saddam Hussein without being Saddam Hussein and be called to assassinate Hussein and take over control the Baathist Party and Iraqi government, Ritter said. “Then we’d be happy.”

Baathists Ousted

But then, on March 19, 2003, the U.S.-led invasion force went into Iraq and threw the baby with the bath water, so to speak, by removing the Baathist Party along with Saddam Hussein, a move that caused widespread civil unrest in Iraq soon after.

“As soon as we invaded, someone said, ‘What do you think?’ I said, ‘America has lost the war.’ He said, ‘How can you say that?’ The second we crossed the line, we lost the war because we embarked on a mission that was going to undo that which held Iraq together,

and there was no way America could sustain a long-term presence in Iraq that would devolve into chaos and anarchy,” said Ritter.

Addicted To War

Ritter stressed that U.S. presidents are in essence forced to lie to the American people about going to war in the Middle East (by using the excuse that the nation in question poses a threat) because the United States is addicted to its lifestyle based on cheap oil.

“We consume far more than we produce as a nation. Therefore, this lifestyle that we are all addicted to requires our government to gain access to resources we need to sustain this lifestyle, and to gain access to these resources on terms that are economically beneficial to America, so we have to have a foreign policy in place that guarantees we have this access,” explained Ritter.

He added, “A president can’t flat-out say, ‘I have to feed your addiction to oil, so I’m going to gain total 100 percent control of the Middle East. I’m going to get rid of every government in the Middle East ... that doesn’t march to our tune.’ What president is going to be honest enough to say that? Not a single one of them.

“So they are going to come up with excuses: ‘Saddam Hussein is a threat to our security because he has weapons of mass destruction. We need to get rid of Saddam. Iran is a threat because of a nuclear weapons program.

We need to get rid of the Iranians. The Saudi Arabians are a threat because they finance global terror.’ That might actually be a true statement, but we’re not marching on Riyadh anytime soon.”

More Active Citizens

The bottom line, Ritter said, is that citizens of the United States should take the responsibility for the deployment of their armed forces more seriously, as they are empowered to do so by the U.S. Constitution, for the sake of their country and “those men and women who honor us by the uniform of the armed services of the United States [who] took an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States.”

“The military doesn’t get to engage in this constitutional debate. Why? Because they expect the people of the United States to do it,” explained Ritter, who as a Marine, served as a ballistic missile advisor to Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf during the first Gulf War.

“That was another great lesson I learned. When the boss says, ‘Take the hill,’ you don’t go, ‘But there’s machine gun up there!’ You take the hill ... Tough luck. Get the job done.”

Ritter added that the only reason why the military should be asked to fight in the name of the United States is when “there is a threat that puts our nation at risk.”


Marine’s POV

When asked about the dangers of depleted uranium radiation from U.S. weapons, Ritter, a U.S. Marine who served 12 years, unapologetically answered that he looked at the issue from the standpoint of a Marine in the heat of battle.

“You put me in charge of a couple hundred Marines, and we’re dug in and a T80 Battle Tank comes over. I don’t want to fight an equal fight. I don’t want him anywhere close to me.

I’m going to open up a 120 millimeter Battle Tank gun with continued depleted uranium rounds that will carve up that tank like a hot knife through butter and kill everyone inside before they can even come close to me,” said Ritter, who served as a ballistic missile advisor to Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf during the first Gulf War.

“I love DU!” he added. “I want to be able to use it on my 20 millimeter Bushmaster, on my LAB25, so it’ll cut through T62 tanks. Why? I don’t want an equal fight, ladies and gentlemen. You send me to war, and I’ll kill the enemy.

I’m going to slaughter them! I’m going to eviscerate them! I’m going to annihilate them! And I’m going to do it in a way that brings all my Marines home or at least as many of them as I can.

THAT’S—MY—JOB! My job is to wage war, not make the world lovey dovey. You click on the “on” switch on, it’s going on, and I’m going to them, and you better give me the weapons to do the job.

“And you better understand that when you give me those weapons, and I use those weapons, there are repercussions. When I pull that trigger on a DU weapon I’m creating conditions that are harmful to American service members.

I’m creating conditions that are harmful to innocent civilians that have to live in that area. If you don’t want that, don’t send me to war.”

måndag, april 24, 2006

USA finansierar terror åt alla håll - nazitaktiken är 20% folkmord på sunnis som står för motståndet



Konsten att söndra, härska och förvilla den egna opinionen


Idag då myten om al-Zarqawi används för att bereda väg för myten om sekteristiskt våld inom den irakiska befolkningen, vilket aldrig funnits tidigare, fungerar sprängningen av Samarramoskén som själva upptakten.


Det är svårt att föreställa sig de grymheter som den amerikanska ockupationsmakten utför för att kunna stanna kvar i Irak och dra sig tillbaka till sina nybyggda militärbaser för att därifrån kunna kontrollera området via de förarlösa flygplanen.


Man förvillar en okunnig hemmaopinione genom sin kontroll av nyhetsförmedlingen och sprider myter om att USA måste stanna kvar för att garantera irakernas säkerhet.


Förhållandet är det rakt motsatta. Taktiken att instifta massmord på en femtedel av befolkningen under åratal med hjälp av dödsskvadroner har inte bara tillämpats i Latinamerika under 1980-talet med hjälp av James Steele och Steven Casteel, utan i stor skala redan av Nazityskland under det andra världskriget.


9 av 10 iraker vill nämligen idag få ut amerikanarna. För att då skaffa sig kontroll över motståndet och passivisera befolkningen tillämpar man denna väl beprövade folkmordstaktik genom sina USAfinansierade dödsskvadroner.


Myten om al-Zarqawi var då tänkt att återupplivas för den amerikanska hemmapubliken genom en ny TVsänd videofilm med honom från en i sammanhanget väl känd webbsida för att koppla det allt starkare irakiska motståndet till denna mytiska terrorist.


Sprängningen av Samarramoskén nyligen skulle utgöra upptakten till en sekteristisk våldsvåg inom befolkningen, något som aldrig tidigare existerat eftersom människor är gifta med varandra över tros- och klangränserna.



The Salvador Option in Iraq


The exile groups who began this dirty war in the early days of the occupation have come to form the core of successive governing The Interior Ministry units that are most frequently implicated in these abuses were formed under U.S. supervision and have been trained by American advisors, retired Colonel James Steele and former D.E.A. officer Steven Casteel, both veterans of previous dirty wars.


In El Salvador between 1984 and 1986, Colonel Steele commanded the U.S. Military Advisor Group, training Salvadoran forces that conducted a brutal campaign against the civilian population. Steven Casteel worked in Colombia with paramilitaries called Los Pepes that later joined forces to form the A.U.C. in 1997, and have been responsible for most of the violence against civilians in Colombia.


U.S. goals in Iraq can be summarized as "lily pads" (U.S. bases) and oil, and a "government" in the Green Zone to legitimize access to both. A smashed Iraq was always going to serve U.S. goals better than a resurgent, independent Iraq under any government. The dirty war advances U.S. policy by terrorizing the population, but also by transforming nationalist resistance into internecine conflict between Iraqis.



"In Iraq, the Salvador Option becomes Reality"


Detta skriver Max Fuller. Men William Osborne finner att något oerhört viktigt saknas i Fullers resonemang utifrån Nazitysklands strategi under det andra världskriget.


"In all of the articles, one main observation is missing -- the fact that the ultimate effect of large scale death-squad activity is almost always genocidal.


"So many people are killed outright, and so many additional people die due to the secondary results of mass murder, that genocide is inevitable.


No one has reached the obvious conclusion that 15 years from now a huge number of Iraqi Sunnis probably will have been killed or exiled -- probably somewhere between 500,000 to 1.8 million [20%]


"Another missing observation is that this sort of death-squad activity combined with invasion has a very clear precedent in the German invasion of Eastern Europe and Russia.


Military police commandos followed right behind the frontline troops and rounded up Jews, communist leaders and partisans. They functioned as death squads.


Even their tactics were very similar to what we are seeing in Iraq. And they were often people who worked as proxies for the Germans.


"In modern warfare, this sort of genocidal death-squad activity is an inherent part of any invasion and occupation. I think this point needs to be stressed."
Iraq’s dirty war of wolves in police clothing



21.11.05 By Kim Sengupta


BAGHDAD - Amid the acrid smoke and dust, the cries of the injured being dragged out of the rubble, General Adnan Thabit arrived at the Hamra hotel bomb site in sunglasses, pressed fatigues and a crimson beret.


"Well, gentlemen," he said to me and another journalist who had just been blasted out of our rooms by suicide bombers, "this is what happens when terrorists carry out terrorism: a lot of dead, a lot hurt. Now you can see what we are up against."


The general was savouring his moment. His special forces have been accused by the media and others of carrying out the worst human rights abuses against "suspected insurgents" in what is becoming an ever more savage and dirty war.


His tough words came as five American soldiers were killed and another five wounded in a bomb attack in northern Iraq and as fresh violence gripped the country,


Yesterday a roadside bomb in Baiji, 110km north of Baghdad, killed five US Marines, while more than 50 people died in suicide attacks, one targeting the funeral of a Shiite Muslim sheikh.


Behind the daily reports is a far more shadowy struggle, one that involves tortured prisoners huddled in dungeons, death-squad victims with their hands tied behind their backs, often mutilated with knives and electric drills, and families searching for relations who have been "disappeared".


This hidden struggle surfaced last week when US forces and Iraqi police found 169 captives, who looked like Holocaust victims, inside an Interior Ministry building.


The "disappeared" prisoners were being held, it is claimed, by the Shiite Badr militia, which controls part of the ministry. Bayan Jabr, the Interior Minister, is a former Badr commander.


General Adnan’s commandos come under the ministry’s control. So does the Wolf Brigade, which vies with the commandos for the title of most feared.


Baghdad is a city in the shadow of gunmen. As I left the Hamra to replace what was lost in my bombed room, I had to negotiate checkpoints of the Badr militia, their Shiite enemies, the Mehdi Army of the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, and the Kurdish peshmerga. The Iraqi police and the Government paramilitaries have their own roadblocks.


And there are others: the Shiite Defenders of Khadamiya - set up under Hussein al-Sadr, a cousin of Muqtada - and the Government-backed Tiger and Scorpion brigades. They are accused of arbitrary arrests, intimidation and extra-judicial killings.


The US and Britain, which trained many of the forces involved and still have ultimate responsibility for them, are implicated. American and British forces have played their own part, from the abuses of Abu Ghraib to deaths in British military custody,


from the deployment of white phosphorus as a chemical weapon in the assault on Fallujah to the wild use of overwhelming American firepower, which some have called almost as indiscriminate as the killings caused by Sunni insurgents’ car bombings.


Faced with an insurgency that shows no signs of abating, the US and Iraqi Government rely more and more on the paramilitaries.


Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, has said units such as General Adnan’s commandos are among "forces that are going to have the greatest leverage on suppressing and eliminating the insurgency".


Those on the receiving end of some of this "leverage", however, describe terrifying experiences. Ahmed Sadoun was arrested in the middle of the night at his home in Mosul by Government paramilitaries accompanied by US soldiers. He was held for seven months before being released without charge and left Iraq as soon as he could.


Speaking from Amman, the 38-year-old engineer, said: "They kicked down our door and asked about a neighbour. When I said I did not know where the man was, they started kicking me and beating me.


"When they took me to their base I was blindfolded and beaten very, very badly with metal rods. They then hung me up on hooks by my wrists until I thought they would tear off. I think that stopped because one of the Americans said something. I could hear English spoken in an angry voice. But this happened again later."


At one roadblock I met the Wolf Brigade. A young man shook his head about what happened at the Hamra.


"That is bad, very bad," he said. "But you are alive, that is good - too many dead people in Baghdad." He was keen to make the point that "the people like us because we kill the people who try to kill them. Listen, mister, we are fighting bad people, you cannot treat them like normal persons."


But what about the innocent who get caught and end up being abused in detention centres?


"Mister, those are just lies. You must not believe them. These people are terrorists. We are here because the police cannot do the job by themselves."


The paramilitary influence on the police is particularly overt in the British-controlled south of Iraq, where the British invited the militias to join the security forces and then saw them take over.


Nothing was done by the British authorities when police in plain clothes, along with their militia colleagues, killed Christians, claiming they sold alcohol, or Sunnis for being supposedly Baathists.


Action was only belatedly taken when a particularly menacing faction, a "force within a force" based at the Jamiat police station on the outskirts of Basra, captured two SAS soldiers who were gathering information on their mistreatment of prisoners.


British troops smashed into a police station to rescue the two soldiers and later arrested more than a dozen others. But now they more or less stay out of Basra, leaving Iraq’s second city at the mercy of a police force that even its commanders say they barely control. There have been dozens of assassinations, including that of at least one foreign journalist.


Even families of fellow policemen are not exempt. Ammar Muthar, a member of the border police, knew his father, Muthar Abadi, was on the Shiite militia hit list because he had acted as a missile engineer in the war against Shiite Iran.


Ammar brought his father from Al-Amarah to Basra for safety. But while he was out one day, six policemen, in uniform but wearing black masks, dragged Abadi away. His body was later found, shot five times, three in the face.


"The neighbours could do nothing because it was the police who took him away," said Ammar. "They wanted to kill him, and no one could stop them."


One British officer said: "You hear about the militias infiltrating the police. But they did not have to. We invited them to join."

http://premierespeakers.com/3612/index.cfm http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FUL506A.html



Scott Ritter, den fd vapeninspektören i Irak under 1990-talet, den 9 mars 2006


Han anser att fler än Bushadministrationen bör ställas till ansvar för den katastrofala situationen i Irak, inbegripet medlemmar ur Clintonadministrationen, Kongressen, Senaten, amerikanska media bl.a.


Det amerikanska folket har ändå konstitutionen till vägledning då det gäller att förhålla sig till landets utrikespolitik. Då borde vi själva reflektera över det som händer och ställa egna krav, menar Ritter. Det är ändå vår konstitution, vårt land och våra problem.


Människor beter sig idag mer som konsumenter i förhållande till makten än som medborgare, säger han. Trots allt är detta med demokrati en hård och smutsig affär som kräver stort arbete och oerhörda egna insatser. Det är där vi allvarligt har misslyckats.


Ritter har uppträtt på en kyrkokonferens med målet att kombinera andlighet med aktivism.


Nästa utmaning för det amerikanska folket är att få fram sanningen när det gäller Irans kärnvapen, förklar han.


Trots att han förhåller sig skeptisk till att Irans kärnvapenprogram skulle vara enbart fredligt, så hävdar han ändå att ingen hittills har kunnat komma med klara fakta som visar att Iran har ett kärnvapenprogram.


Han stöder också förslaget att fortsätta med FN-inspektioner istället för att rusa iväg med en väpnad konflikt mot Iran. I helvete heller, utbrister han.


Ritter, till skillnad från t.ex Robert Fisk och irakiska medborgare, påstår att det enda som tidigare hållit det irakiska folket ifrån ett sekteristiskt, religiöst och etniskt våld var Saddam Husseins hårda nypor.


Han menar att USA använde Saddam bara då man ansåg det bekvämt. Som då man ville hålla de iranska mullorna på mattan under Iran-Irakkriget.


På -80talet vände sig irakiska kurder till Iran för att strida mot Irak vid ett slag i närheten av en bassäng som försörjde Bagdads befolkning med el.


Den irakiska sidan utnyttjade då senapsgas uppirån en höjd för att hålla den kurdiska sidan stången. Iranerna i sin tur använde sig av en cyanidbaserad blodagent för motattack, vilken dödade de kurdiska rebellerna i mitten.


Som en förebyggande åtgärd gasade saddamsstyrkorna åtminstone tre byar vilket inte är detsamma som att medvetet utplåna en hel försvarslös befolkning.


Detta resulterade i att 7000 kurder dödades, menar Ritter, i ett krig där en miljon människor dog från sådana konventionella vapen som artilleri och maskingevär, vilket Iran använde sig av, ett land med sina 60 miljoner invånare, liksom Irak, med sina 23 miljoner.


Jag ursäktar inte det irakiska dådet men vi bör sätta saker och ting i sitt sammanhang, menar Ritter och hävdar att en av marinkårens vapenbataljoner med obegränsad tillgång till ammunition skulle ha dödat ett vida större antal människor än dessa kemiska, biologiska och långdistansmissiler.


"Jag vill påstå att vi inte kallar ett marinkårskompani för massförstörelsevapen. Men vi kanske borde göra det".

onsdag, april 19, 2006

Chomsky m.fl om övergreppen mot demokratin

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lyssna först på anförandet av den kände David Ray Griffin om de
9 avslöjande myterna om 9/11. Den tredje skyskrapan föll ihop som de andra utan att ens ha blivit träffad av något flygplan, fint som en pannkaka under explosioner och en oerhörd värme.

Pentagon träffades av ett missilliknande föremål.

Allt snabbt undanröjt för omvärlden. Presidentens svåger är chef för ett av de tre företag i världen som behärskar just avancerad kontrollerad förstörelse
http://www.gunsandbutter.net/archives.php


Här ser vi vad som också skedde innan 9/11
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12233.htm


Här ser vi filmat material från 9/11 som direkt visar förloppet
http://www.reopen911.org/#plan


Denna film visar den direkta förbindelsen mellan 11 September 2001 och USAs regering
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848



Terrorist "Chief" Is U.S. Spin:

04/13/06 "The Mirror" -- -- TERROR mastermind Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi is a largely fictitious bogeyman invented to help an American propaganda war in Iraq,


Senior US military and intelligence officers admitted they have "overstated" the importance of the Jordanian-born al-Qaeda chief.


Evidence has emerged that spin doctors also bombarded the "home audience" with exaggerated stories about al-Zarqawi, who is rumoured to have personally decapitated British hostage Ken Bigley in 2004.


But former SAS trooper Ben Griffin said recently: "I was there for months and I didn't come across any foreign fighters."



www.democracynow.org
AMY GOODMAN: It's good to have you with us. Failed States,
what do you mean?


NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, over the years there have been a series of concepts developed to justify the use of force in international affairs for a long period. It was possible to justify it on the pretext, which usually turned out to have very little substance, that the U.S. was defending itself against the communist menace.


By the 1980s, that was wearing pretty thin. The Reagan administration concocted a new category: terrorist states. They declared a war on terror as soon as they entered office in the early 1980s, 1981.


‘We have to defend ourselves from the plague of the modern age, return to barbarism, the evil scourge of terrorism,’ and so on, and particularly state-directed international terrorism.


A few years later -- this is Clinton -- Clinton devised the concept of rogue states. ‘It’s 1994, we have to defend ourselves from rogue states.’ Then, later on came the failed states, which either threaten our security, like Iraq, or require our intervention in order to save them, like Haiti, often devastating them in the process.


In each case, the terms have been pretty hard to sustain, because it's been difficult to overlook the fact that under any, even the most conservative characterization of these notions -- let's say U.S. law -- the United States fits fairly well into the category, as has often been recognized.


By now, for example, the category -- even in the Clinton years, leading scholars, Samuel Huntington and others, observed that -- in the major journals, Foreign Affairs -- that in most of the world, much of the world, the United States is regarded as the leading rogue state and the greatest threat to their existence.


By now, a couple of years later, Bush years, same journals’ leading specialists don't even report international opinion. They just describe it as a fact that the United States has become a leading rogue state. Surely, it's a terrorist state under its own definition of international terrorism, not only carrying out violent terrorist acts and supporting them, but even radically violating the so-called "Bush Doctrine," that a state that harbors terrorists is a terrorist state.


Undoubtedly, the U.S. harbors leading international terrorists, people described by the F.B.I. and the Justice Department as leading terrorists, like Orlando Bosch, now Posada Carriles, not to speak of those who actually implement state terrorism.


And I think the same is true of the category “failed states.” The U.S. increasingly has taken on the characteristics of what we describe as failed states. In the respects that one mentioned, and also, another critical respect, namely the -- what is sometimes called a democratic deficit, that is, a substantial gap between public policy and public opinion.


So those suggestions that you just read off, Amy, those are actually not mine. Those are pretty conservative suggestions. They are the opinion of the majority of the American population, in fact, an overwhelming majority. And to propose those suggestions is to simply take democracy seriously. It's interesting that on these examples that you've read and many others, there is an enormous gap between public policy and public opinion. The proposals, the general attitudes of the public, which are pretty well studied, are -- both political parties are, on most of these issues, well to the right of the population.


JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Professor Chomsky, in the early parts of the book, especially on the issue of the one characteristic of a failed state, which is its increasing failure to protect its own citizens, you lay out a pretty comprehensive look at what the, especially in the Bush years, the war on terrorism has meant in terms of protecting the American people. And you lay out clearly, especially since the war, the invasion of Iraq, that terrorist, major terrorist action and activity around the world has increased substantially. And also, you talk about the dangers of a possible nuclear -- nuclear weapons being used against the United States. Could you expand on that a little bit?


NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, there has been a very serious threat of nuclear war. It's not -- unfortunately, it's not much discussed among the public. But if you look at the literature of strategic analysts and so on, they're extremely concerned. And they describe particularly the Bush administration aggressive militarism as carrying an “appreciable risk of ultimate doom,” to quote one, “apocalypse soon,” to quote Robert McNamara and many others.


And there's good reasons for it, I mean, which could explain, and they explain. That's been expanded by the Bush administration consciously, not because they want nuclear war, but it's just not a high priority. So the rapid expansion of offensive U.S. military capacity, including the militarization of space, which is the U.S.'s pursuit alone. The world has been trying very hard to block it. 95% of the expenditures now are from the U.S., and they're expanding.


All of these measures bring about a completely predictable reaction on the part of the likely targets. They don't say, you know, ‘Thank you. Here are our throats. Please cut them.’ They react in the ways that they can. For some, it will mean responding with the threat or maybe use of terror. For others, more powerful ones, it's going to mean sharply increasing their own offensive military capacity. So Russian military expenditures have sharply increased in response to Bush programs.


Chinese expansion of offensive military capacity is also beginning to increase for the same reasons. All of that threatens -- raises the already severe threat of even -- of just accidental nuclear war. These systems are on computer-controlled alert. And we know that our own systems have many errors, which are stopped by human intervention. Their systems are far less secure; the Russian case, deteriorated. These moves all sharply enhance the threat of nuclear war. That's serious nuclear war that I'm talking about.


There's also the threat of dirty bombs, small nuclear explosions. Small means not so small, but in comparison with a major attack, which would pretty much exterminate civilized life. The U.S. intelligence community regards the threat of a dirty bomb, say in New York, in the next decade as being probably greater than 50%. And those threats increase as the threat of terror increases.


And Bush administration policies have, again, consciously been carried out in a way, which they know is likely to increase the threat of terror. The most obvious example is the Iraq invasion. That was undertaken with the anticipation that it would be very likely to increase the threat of terror and also nuclear proliferation. And, in fact, that's exactly what happened, according to the judgment of the C.I.A., National Intelligence Council, foreign intelligence agencies, independent specialists. They all point out that, yes, as anticipated, it increased the threat of terror. In fact, it did so in ways well beyond what was anticipated.


To mention just one, we commonly read that there were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq. Well, it's not totally accurate. There were means to develop weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and known to be in Iraq. They were under guard by U.N. inspectors, who were dismantling them. When Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest sent in their troops, they neglected to instruct them to guard these sites.


The U.N. inspectors were expelled, the sites were left unguarded. The inspectors continued their work by satellite and reported that over a hundred sites had been looted, in fact, systematically looted, not just somebody walking in, but careful looting. That included dangerous biotoxins, means to hide precision equipment to be used to develop nuclear weapons and missiles, means to develop chemical weapons and so on. All of this has disappeared. One hates to imagine where it's disappeared to, but it could end up in New York.


JUAN GONZALEZ: Professor Chomsky, in your book you also talk about how Iraq has become almost an incubator or a university now for advanced training for terrorists, who then are leaving the country there and going around the world, very much as what happened in the 1980s in Afghanistan. Could you talk about that somewhat?


NOAM CHOMSKY: Actually, that's -- actually, these are just quotes from the C.I.A. and other U.S. intelligence agencies and analysts. Yes, they describe Iraq now as a training ground for highly professionalized terrorists skilled in urban contact. They do compare it to Afghanistan, but say that it's much more serious, because of the high level of training and skill.


These are almost entirely Iraqis. There's a small number of foreign fighters drawn to Iraq. Estimates are maybe 5% to 10%. And they are, as in the case of Afghanistan, are expected to spread into throughout many parts of the world and to carry out the kinds of terrorism that they're trained in, as a reaction to -- clearly reaction to the invasion. Iraq was, whatever you thought about it, was free from connections to terror prior to the invasion. It's now a major terror center.


It's not as President Bush says, that terrorists are being concentrated in Iraq so that we can kill them. These are terrorists who had no previous record of involvement in terrorism. The foreign fighters who have come in, mostly from Saudi Arabia, have been investigated extensively by Saudi and Israeli and U.S. intelligence, and what they conclude is that they were mobilized by the Iraq war, no involvement in terrorist actions in the past. And undoubtedly, just as expected, the Iraq war has raised an enormous hostility throughout much of the world, and particularly the Muslim world.


It was the most -- probably the most unpopular war in history, and even before it was fought. Virtually no support for it anywhere, except the U.S. and Britain and a couple of other places. And since the war itself was perhaps one of the most incredible military catastrophes in history, has caused utter disaster in Iraq and has -- and all of that has since simply intensified the strong opposition to the war of the kind that you heard from that Indonesian student of a few moments ago.


But that's why it spread, and that's a -- it increases the reservoir of potential support for the terrorists, who regard themselves as a vanguard, attempting to elicit support from others, bring others to join with them. And the Bush administration is their leading ally in this. Again, not my words, the words of the leading U.S. specialists on terror, Michael Scheuer in this case. And definitely, that's happened.


And it's not the only case. I mean, in case after case, the Bush administration has simply downgraded the threat of terror. One example is the report of the 9/11 Commission. Here in the United States, the Bush administration didn't want the commission to be formed, tried to block it, but it was finally formed. Bipartisan commission, gave many recommendations. The recommendations, to a large extent, were not carried out. The commission members, including the chair, were appalled by this, set up their own private commission after their own tenure was completed, and continued to report that the measures are simply not being carried out.


There are many other examples. One of the most striking is the Treasury Department has a branch, the Office of Financial Assets Control, which is supposed to monitor suspicious funding transfers around the world. Well, that's a core element of the so-called war on terror. They've given reports to Congress. It turns out that they have a few officials devoted to al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, but about -- I think it was -- six times that many devoted to whether there are any evasions of the totally illegal U.S. embargo against Cuba.


There was an instance of that just a few months ago, when the U.S. infuriated even energy corporations by ordering a Sheraton Hotel in Mexico City to cancel a meeting between Cuban oil specialists and U.S. oil companies, including some big ones, seeking to explore the development of offshore Cuban oil resources. The government ordered -- this OFAC ordered the hotel, the U.S. hotel, to expel the Cubans and terminate the meeting. Mexico wasn't terribly happy about this. It’s a extraordinary arrogance. But it also reveals the hysterical fanaticism of the goal of strangling Cuba.


And we know why. It's a free country. We have records going from way back, and a rich source of them go back to the Kennedy-Johnson administrations. They had to carry out a terrorist war against Cuba, as they did, and try to strangle Cuba economically, because of Cuba's -- what they called Cuba's successful defiance of U.S. policies, going back to the Monroe Doctrine. No Russians, but the Monroe Doctrine, 150 years back at that time.


And the goal was, as was put very plainly by the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations, to make the people of Cuba suffer. They are responsible for the fact that the government is in place. We therefore have to make them suffer and starve, so that they'll throw out the government. It's a policy, which is pretty consistent. It’s being applied right now in Palestine. It was applied under the Iraqi sanctions, plot in Chile, and so on. It’s savage.


AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Noam Chomsky, his new book, after he wrote Hegemony or Survival, one of scores of books, if not a hundred books that Professor Chomsky has written, his new one is called Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy.


You mention Israel, Palestine, and I wanted to ask you about this new study that's come out. A dean at Harvard University and a professor at the University of Chicago are coming under intense criticism for publishing an academic critique of the pro-Israel lobby in Washington.


The paper charges that the United States has willingly set aside its own security and that of many of its allies, in order to advance the interests of Israel. In addition, the study accuses the pro-Israel lobby, particularly AIPAC, the America Israel Public Affairs Committee, of manipulating the U.S. media, policing academia and silencing critics of Israel by labeling them as anti-Semitic. The study also examines the role played by the pro-Israel neoconservatives in the lead-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.


The authors are the Stephen Walt, a dean at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago. They, themselves, are now being accused of anti-Semitism. In Washington, a Democratic congressman, Eliot Engle of New York, described the professors as dishonest so-called intellectuals and anti-Semites. The Harvard professor, Ruth Wisse, called for the paper to be withdrawn. Harvard Law School professor, Alan Dershowitz, described the study as trash that could have been written by neo-Nazi David Duke.


The New York Sun reported Harvard has received several calls from pro-Israel donors, expressing concern about the paper, and Harvard has already taken steps to distance itself from the report. Last week, it removed the logo of the Kennedy School of Government from the paper and added a new disclaimer to the study. The report is 81 pages. It was originally published on Harvard's website and an edited version appeared in the London Review of Books.


The controversy comes less than a year after Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz attempted to block the publication of Norman Finkelstein’s book Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History. Now, this goes into a lot of issues: the content of the study, what you think of it, the response to it and also the whole critique. In this country, what happens to those who criticize the policies of the state of Israel? Noam Chomsky.


NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, the answer to your last question is well described in Norman Finkelstein's quite outstanding book and also in the record of Dershowitz’s attempts to prevent its publication. Some of the documents were just published in the Journal of Palestine Studies. Finkelstein's book gives an extensive detailed account, the best one we have, of a frightening record of Israeli crimes and abuses, where he relies on the most respectable sources, the major human rights organizations, Israeli human rights organizations and others, and demonstrates, just conclusively, that Alan Dershowitz's defense of these atrocities, based on no evidence at all, is outrageous and grotesque.


Nevertheless, Finkelstein comes under tremendous attack for being anti-Semitic, and so on. Now that's pretty normal. It goes back, I suppose, to the distinguished diplomat, Abba Eban -- it must be thirty years ago -- wrote in an American Jewish journal that “the task of Zionists,” he said, “is to show that all political anti-Zionism” – that means criticism of the policies of the state of Israel – “is either anti-Semitism or Jewish self-hatred.” Well, okay, that excludes all possible criticism, by definition. As examples of neurotic Jewish self-hatred, I should declare an interest. He mentioned two people. I was one; the other was Izzy Stone.


Once you release the torrent of abuse, you don't need arguments and evidence, you can just scream. And Professors Walt and Mearsheimer deserve credit for publishing a study, which they knew was going to elicit the usual streams of abuse and hysteria from supporters of Israeli crimes and violence. However, we should recognize that this is pretty uniform. Try to say a sane and uncontroversial word about any other issue dear to the hearts of the intellectual elite that they've turned into holy writ, you get the same reaction. So – and there's no lobby, which does raise one of a few minor points that raises questions about the validity of the critique.


It's a serious, careful piece of work. It deserves to be read. They deserve credit for writing it. But it still it leaves open the question of how valid the analysis is, and I notice that there's a pretty subtle question involved. Everyone agrees, on all sides, that there are a number of factors that enter into determining U.S. foreign policy. One is strategic and economic interests of the major power centers within the United States.


In the case of the Middle East, that means the energy corporations, arms producers, high-tech industry, financial institutions and others. Now, these are not marginal institutions, particularly in the Bush administration. So one question is to what extent does policy reflect their interests. Another question is to what extent is it influenced by domestic lobbies. And there are other factors. But just these two alone, yes, they are – you find them in most cases, and to try to sort out their influence is not so simple.


In particular, it's not simple when their interests tend to coincide, and by and large, there's a high degree of conformity. If you look over the record, what's called the national interest, meaning the special interests of those with -- in whose hands power is concentrated, the national interest, in that sense, tends to conform to the interests of the lobbies. So in those cases, it's pretty hard to disentangle them.


If the thesis of the book – the thesis of the book is that the lobbies have overwhelming influence, and the so-called “national interest” is harmed by what they do. If that were the case, it would be, I would think, a very hopeful conclusion. It would mean that U.S. policy could easily be reversed. It would simply be necessary to explain to the major centers of power, like the energy corporations, high-tech industry and arms producers and so on, just explain to them that they've – that their interests are being harmed by this small lobby that screams anti-Semitism and funds congressmen, and so on. Surely those institutions can utterly overwhelm the lobby in political influence, in finance, and so on, so that ought to reverse the policy.


Well, it doesn't happen, and there are a number of reasons for it. For one thing, there's an underlying assumption that the so-called national interest has been harmed by these policies. Well, you know, you really have to demonstrate that. So who's been harmed? Have the energy corporations been harmed by U.S. policy in the Middle East over the last 60 years?


I mean, they're making profits beyond the dream of avarice, as the main government investigation of them reported. Even more today – that was a couple years ago. Has the U.S. – the main concern of the U.S. has been to control what the State Department 60 years ago called “a stupendous source of strategic power,” Middle East oil. Yeah, they’ve controlled it. There have been – in fact, the invasion of Iraq was an attempt to intensify that control. It may not do it. It may have the opposite effect, but that's a separate question. It was the intent, clearly.


There have been plenty of barriers. The major barrier is the one that is the usual one throughout the world: independent nationalism. It’s called “radical nationalism,” which was serious. It was symbolized by Nasser, but also Kassem in Iraq, and others. Well, the U.S. did succeed in overcoming that barrier. How? Israel destroyed Nasser. That was a tremendous service to the United States, to U.S. power, that is, to the energy corporations, to Saudi Arabia, to the main centers of power here, and in fact, it's in – that was 1967, and it was after that victory that the U.S.-Israeli relations really solidified, became what's called a “strategic asset.”


It's also then that the lobby gained its force. It's also then, incidentally, that the educated classes, the intellectual political class entered into an astonishing love affair with Israel, after its demonstration of tremendous power against a third-world enemy, and in fact, that's a very critical component of what's called the lobby. Walt and Mearsheimer mention it, but I think it should be emphasized. And they are very influential.


They determine, certainly influence, the shaping of news and information in journals, media, scholarship, and so on. My own feeling is they're probably the most influential part of the lobby. Now, we sort of have to ask, what's the difference between the lobby and the power centers of the country?


But the barriers were overcome. Israel has performed many other services to the United States. You can run through the record. It's also performed secondary services. So in the 1980s, particularly, Congress was imposing barriers to the Reagan administration's support for and carrying out major terrorist atrocities in Central America. Israel helped evade congressional restrictions by carrying out training, and so on, itself. The Congress blocked U.S. trade with South Africa. Israel helped evade the embargo to all the – both the racist regimes of Southern Africa, and there have been many other cases. By now, Israel is virtually an offshore U.S. military base and high-tech center in the Middle East.


JUAN GONZALEZ: Professor Chomsky, in your book you have a fascinating section, where you talk about the historical basis of the Bush doctrine of preemptive war, and also its relationship to empire or to the building of a U.S. empire. And you go back, you mention a historian, John Lewis Gaddis, who the Bush administration loves, because he's actually tried to find the historical rationalization for this use, going back to John Quincy Adams and as Secretary of State in the invasion by General Andrew Jackson of Florida in the Seminole Wars, and how this actually is a record of the use of this idea to continue the expansionist aims of the United States around the world.


NOAM CHOMSKY: Yeah, that's a very interesting case, actually. John Lewis Gaddis is not only the favorite historian of the Reagan administration, but he's regarded as the dean of Cold War scholarship, the leading figure in the American Cold War scholarship, a professor at Yale. And he wrote the one, so far, book-length investigation into the roots of the Bush Doctrine, which he generally approves, the usual qualifications about style and so on. He traces it is back, as you say, to his hero, the great grand strategist, John Quincy Adams, who wrote a series of famous state papers back in 1818, in which he gave post facto justification to Andrew Jackson's invasion of Florida. And it's rather interesting.


Gaddis is a good historian. He knows the sources, cites all the right sources. But he doesn't tell you what they say. So what I did in the book is just add what they say, what he omitted. Well, what they describe is a shocking record of atrocities and crimes carried out against what were called runaways Negros and lawless Indians, devastated the Seminoles. There was another major Seminole war later, either exterminated them or drove them into the marshes, completely unprovoked. There were fabricated pretexts. Gaddis talks about the threat of England. There was no threat from England. England didn't do a thing. In fact, even Adams didn't claim that. But it was what Gaddis calls an -- it established what Gaddis calls the thesis that expansion is the best guarantee of security. So you want to be secure, just expand, conquer more. Then you'll be secure.


And he says, yes, that goes right through all American administrations -- he's correct about that -- and is the centerpiece of the Bush Doctrine. So he says the Bush Doctrine isn't all that new. Expansion is the key to security. So we just expand and expand, and then we become more secure. Well, you know, he doesn't mention the obvious precedents that come to mind, so I'll leave them out, but you can think of them. And there's some truth to that, except for what he ignores and, in fact, denies, namely the huge atrocities that are recorded in the various sources, scholarly sources that he cites, which also point out that Adams, by giving this justification for Jackson's war --


he was alone in the administration to do it, but he managed to convince the President -- he established the doctrine of executive wars without congressional authorization, in violation of the Constitution. Adams later recognized that and was sorry for it, and very sorry, but that established it and, yes, that's been consistent ever since then: executive wars without congressional authorization. We know of case after case. It doesn't seem to bother the so-called originalists who talk about original intent.


But that aside, he also -- the scholarship that Gaddis cites but doesn't quote also points out that Adams established other principles that are consistent from then until now, namely massive lying to the public, distortion, evoking hysterical fears, all kinds of deceitful efforts to mobilize the population in support of atrocities. And yes, that continues right up to the present, as well. So there's very interesting historical record. What it shows is almost the opposite of what Gaddis claims and what the Reagan -- the Bush administration -- I think I said Reagan -- the Bush administration likes. And it's right out of the very sources that he refers to, the right sources, the right scholarship. He simply ignores them. But, yes, the record is interesting.


AMY GOODMAN: Noam Chomsky, I wanted to ask you a question. As many people know, you're perhaps one of the most cited sources or analysis in the world. And I thought this was an interesting reference to these citations. This was earlier this month, program, Tim Russert, Meet the Press, questioning the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace.


TIM RUSSERT: Mr. Jaafari said that one of his favorite American writers is Professor Noam Chomsky, someone who has written very, very strongly against the Iraq war and against most of the Bush administration foreign policy. Does that concern you?


GEN. PETER PACE: I hope he has more than one book on his nightstand.

TIM RUSSERT: So it troubles you?


GEN. PETER PACE: I would be concerned if the only access to foreign ideas that the Prime Minister had was that one author. If, in fact, that's one of many, and he's digesting many different opinions, that's probably healthy.


AMY GOODMAN: That's General Peter Pace, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, being questioned by Tim Russert, talking about Jaafari, who at this very moment is struggling to be -- again, to hold on to his position as prime minister of Iraq. Your response, Noam Chomsky?


NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, I, frankly, rather doubt that General Pace recognized my name or knew what he was referring to, but maybe he did. The quote from Tim Russert, if I recall, was that this was a book that was highly critical of the Iraq war. Well, that shouldn't surprise a prime minister of Iraq. After all, according to U.S. polls, the latest ones I've seen reported, Brookings Institution, 87% of Iraqis want a timetable for withdrawal. That's an astonishing figure. If it really is all Iraqis, as was asserted. That means virtually everyone in Arab Iraq, the areas where the troops are deployed. I, frankly, doubt that you could have found figures like that in Vichy, France, or, you know, Poland under -- when it was a Russian satellite.


What it means essentially is that virtually everyone wants a timetable for withdrawal. So, would it be surprising that a prime minister would read a book that's critical of the war and says the same thing? It's interesting that Bush and Blair, who are constantly preaching about their love of democracy, announce, declare that there will be no timetable for withdrawal. Well, that part probably reflects the contempt for democracy that both of them have continually demonstrated, them and their colleagues, virtually without exception.


But there are deeper reasons, and we ought to think about them. If we're talking about exit strategies from Iraq, we should bear in mind that for the U.S. to leave Iraq without establishing a subordinate client state would be a nightmare for Washington. All you have to do is think of the policies that an independent Iraq would be likely to pursue, if it was mildly democratic. It would almost surely strengthen its already developed relations with Shiite Iran right next door.


Any degree of Iraqi autonomy stimulates autonomy pressures across the border in Saudi Arabia, where there's a substantial Shiite population, who have been bitterly repressed by the U.S.-backed tyranny but is now calling for more autonomy. That happens to be where most of Saudi oil is. So, what you can imagine -- I'm sure Washington planners are having nightmares about this -- is a potential -- pardon?


JUAN GONZALEZ: I would like to ask you, in terms of this whole issue of democracy, in your book you talk about the democracy deficit. Obviously, the Bush administration is having all kinds of problems with their -- even their model of democracy around the world, given the election results in the Palestinian territories, the situation now in Iraq, where the President is trying to force out the Prime Minister of the winning coalition there, in Venezuela, even in Iran. Your concept of the democracy deficit, and why this administration is able to hold on in the United States itself?


NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, there are two aspects of that. One is, the democracy deficit internal to the United States, that is, the enormous and growing gap between public opinion and public policy. Second is their so-called democracy-promotion mission elsewhere in the world. The latter is just pure fraud. The only evidence that they're interested in promoting democracy is that they say so.


The evidence against it is just overwhelming, including the cases you mentioned and many others. I mean, the very fact that people are even willing to talk about this shows that we're kind of insisting on being North Koreans: if the Dear Leader has spoken, that establishes the truth; it doesn't matter what the facts are. I go into that in some detail in the book.


The democracy deficit at home is another matter. How have -- I mean, they have an extremely narrow hold on political power. Their policies are strongly opposed by most of the population. How do they carry this off? Well, that's been through an intriguing mixture of deceit, lying, fabrication, public relations. There's actually a pretty good study of it by two good political scientists, Hacker and Pearson, who just run through the tactics and how it works.


And they have barely managed to hold on to political power and are attempting to use it to dismantle the institutional structure that has been built up over many years with enormous popular support -- the limited benefits system; they’re trying to dismantle Social Security and are actually making progress on that; to the tax cuts, overwhelmingly for the rich, are creating -- are purposely creating a future situation, first of all, a kind of fiscal train wreck in the future, but also a situation in which it will be virtually impossible to carry out the kinds of social policies that the public overwhelmingly supports.


And to manage to carry this off has been an impressive feat of manipulation, deceit, lying, and so on. No time to talk about it here, but actually my book gives a pretty good account. I do discuss it in the book. That's a democratic deficit at home and an extremely serious one. The problems of nuclear war, environmental disaster, those are issues of survival, the top issues and the highest priority for anyone sensible. Third issue is that the U.S. government is enhancing those threats. And a fourth issue is that the U.S. population is opposed, but is excluded from the political system. That's a democratic deficit. It's one we can deal with, too.


JUAN GONZALEZ: With public opposition to the Bush administration's policies at record highs, I asked Professor Chomsky to talk about how it is that so much discontent with the government has not translated into larger political mobilization.


NOAM CHOMSKY: First of all, on the fact that advertising is designed to undermine free markets, that everybody knows, anyone who’s ever looked at a television ad. According to what you’re taught in economics courses, our system is based on free markets with entrepreneurial initiative and rational choices by informed consumers. Well, the reality is radically different. A tremendous amount of the entrepreneurial initiative, if you want to call it that, comes from the dynamic state sector on which most of the economy relies to socialize costs and risks and privatize eventual profit. And that's achieved by, if you like, advertising. So, it’s presented under the rubric of defense or some other pretext, but it’s essentially a way for the public to pay the costs of research and development, take the risks and eventually hand over the profit. There’s some entrepreneurial initiative, but not all that much, mostly at the marketing end.


As far as consumers are concerned, I mean, when you look at a television ad, it is not trying to create an informed consumer who’s going to make a rational choice. We all know that. If they were going to do that, General Motors would just list the characteristics of its models and, you know, you’re over, you’re done. The purpose is to delude and deceive by imagery -- it’s transparent -- meaning to ensure that uninformed consumers will make irrational choices.


And that goes straight to the democratic deficit. The U.S. does not have elections in a serious sense. It has advertising campaigns, run by the same industries that sell toothpaste: public relations industry. When they’re selling candidates, they don't tell you -- provide you with information about them, any more than they do about lifestyle drugs or cars. What they do is create imagery to delude and deceive. That's what's called an electoral campaign. The result is that people are just unaware of the stands of candidates on issues.


So to take one critical example, take, say, the Kyoto Protocols. I mean, they’re not the be all and end all, but environmental catastrophe is a serious matter. The public is strongly in favor of the Kyoto Protocols, so strongly in favor that a majority of Bush voters -- Bush voters -- thought that he was in favor of it. They are simply unaware. And it’s not because of mental incapacity or a lack of interest. It’s because that's the way campaigns are presented. They’re presented to keep issues off the agenda. Striking cases.


Take, say, healthcare, one of the worst domestic problem -- most serious domestic problems; for most people, a major problem. I mean, it’s the most inefficient healthcare system in the world, double the per capita cost of other comparable countries, some of the worst health outcomes, mainly because it is privatized. The public is strongly against it. For a long period the public has been in favor of some kind of national healthcare system.


Well, you know, Kerry is supposed to be the candidate of, you know -- speaking for whose constituency calls for social spending, and so on and so forth. The last presidential debate, a couple days before the election, was on domestic issues. And the New York Times had an accurate account of it. It described it as -- it pointed out that Kerry made no mention of any government involvement in any healthcare system. And the reason, according to the Times reporter, is that the idea lacks political support, meaning it only has the support of the overwhelming majority of the population, but it’s opposed by the pharmaceutical corporations, the insurance industry, and so on. That's what counts as political support. So Kerry didn't mention it, and the public didn't know his stand on these issues. And so it goes issue after issue. So, these are not real elections. We’d laugh at them, and they were some third world country.


Now, take the war in Iraq. When you talk about the government propaganda system we have to recognize that that includes the media. It includes the media, the journalists and so on. That’s all part of the propaganda system, very closely linked. There is virtually no criticism of the war in Iraq. Now, that will surprise journalists, I suppose. They think they’re being very critical, but they’re not. I mean, the kinds of criticism of the war in Iraq that are allowed in the doctrinal system, media and so on, are the kind of criticisms you heard about, say, in the German general staff after Stalingrad: it’s not working; it’s costing too much; we made a mistake, we should get a different general; something like that. In fact, it’s about at the level of a high school newspaper cheering the local football team. You don't ask, “Should they win?” You ask, “How are we doing?” You know, “Did the coaches make a mistake? Should we try something else?” That's called criticism.


But there’s a critical question: What right does the U.S. have to invade another country, in gross violation of international law, understanding that it’s probably going to increase the threat of terror and nuclear proliferation? But just, you know, it’s a supreme international crime, in the words of the Nuremburg Tribunal, for which German leaders were hanged. You know, the issue isn't how they are going to win, it’s “What are they doing there in the first place?”


AMY GOODMAN: Do you believe, Noam Chomsky, in immediate withdrawal, that the troops should withdraw immediately?


NOAM CHOMSKY: I think we should estab-- there is a certain principle that we should adhere to. The principle is that invading armies have no rights whatsoever. They have responsibilities. The prime responsibility is to heed the will of the victims and to pay massive reparations to the victims for the crimes they’ve committed. In this case, the crimes go back through the sanctions which were a monstrous crime, through the support for Saddam Hussein, right through his worst atrocities, but particularly, those of the invasion. Those are the two responsibilities of an occupying army.


Well, you know, the population has made it pretty clear. Even U.S. and British polls make that clear. Overwhelming majorities want the U.S. to set a timetable to withdraw and adhere to it. Britain and the United States refuse. Reparations, we can’t even talk about; that's so far from consciousness in the doctrinal system. Well, I think that answers the question. Doesn’t really matter what I think. What matters is what Iraqis think, and I think we know that pretty well. The reason the U.S. and Britain aren’t withdrawing are those I mentioned. You know, the consequences of independence for Iraq would be an ultimate nightmare for them. And they’re going to try to do anything they can to prevent Iraqi democracy, as they’ve been trying in the past.


AMY GOODMAN: And the argument that they will just descend into civil war and that the sectarian violence will increase, and the U.S. went in and now has a responsibility not the leave a mess?


NOAM CHOMSKY: Yeah, I mean, the Germans could have given the same argument in occupied Europe, the Russians in the satellites, the Japanese in Asia, and so on. Yeah, they could have all given the same argument: well, we went in, and now we have a responsibility to ensure that terrible things don't happen, and so on. And the argument had some validity. So, when the Germans were driven out of France, let's say, there were thousands, maybe tens of thousands of people killed by -- as collaborators, and in Asia, even more so. But is that an argument for them? No. It’s none of their business.


We don't know what will happen, and it’s not our decision to make. It’s the decision of the victims to make, not our decision. Occupying armies have no right to make the decision. We could have an academic seminar about it, in which we could discuss the likely consequences. But the point is it’s not for us to say. Well, until that enters into the discussion, and the critical issues of the war, like what right do we have to invade in the first place, enter into the discussion, the media and the journalism and so on are simply part of the government propaganda system, as I say, like a high school newspaper or like Pravda during the Afghanistan war.


JUAN GONZALEZ: And what of the role of the American people in this process? Clearly, it seems to me that so much of the antiwar sentiments quickly gets channeled into one or another political candidates, rather than into continuing to build a mass movement that, regardless of the political folks in office, will move to extricate the United States from this invasion.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Yeah, you’re absolutely right. But that's our problem. I mean, you cannot expect power centers , whether in the government or in the economic system or in the media, which are all closely linked. I mean, they aren't going to try to stimulate popular movements that will be critical of power and try to erode power. In fact, their task is the opposite. So, yes, this has to be done by a popular movement. I mean, that's the way every constructive change has taken place in the past. I mean, how did we get civil rights to the extent that they exist, minority rights, women's rights, the benefits system that does exist, and so on? I mean, these things are not gifts from above; they are won from below. And it’s going to be the same on this.


AMY GOODMAN: Noam Chomsky, I was going to say, as you talk about popular movements, right now we are in the midst of a kind of groundswell that the -- certainly the U.S. English-speaking media has not dealt with before. And that is this massive level of grassroots protest against immigration policy in this country, some of them not just the largest protests on immigration, but some of the largest protests in the history of this country are taking place, with upwards of a million people protesting in the streets of Los Angeles, tens of thousands in Atlanta and Arizona, the biggest protest perhaps in the history of Chicago. What about this? The walkout of 40,000 high school students?


NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, these protests did have an effect. The bill that went through the Senate Judiciary Committee, to some extent, reflected them. Power centers cannot ignore public protests and, even worse from their point of view, continuing organization. You know, a demonstration now and then, okay, you can live with it. If it continues and becomes real grassroots organization, developing a functioning political system, in which people actually participate in forming and shaping policy and electing their own candidates, if it gets to that stage, they’re in trouble. And we’re far from that.


In fact, it’s kind of -- it’s terrible irony. We ought to be ashamed of it. But if you want to look for democratic elections in the Western hemisphere these days, you have to look at countries like Bolivia, not the United States. I mean, in Bolivia, they had a real election. It’s the poorest country in South America. Last December, they had an election in which organized -- well-organized masses of the population -- poor people, indigenous people and others -- managed to elect a candidate from their own ranks. There were real serious issues, and people knew the issues. And they voted on the issues. That's dramatically different from here. That's real democracy. You want to talk about democracy promotion, we need it here, and we can learn lessons from them.


Actually, the same is true in Venezuela. Venezuela is bitterly denounced here by the government media propaganda system as totalitarian dictatorship, and so on and so forth. Well, you know, you can think what you like about Chavez -- not our business -- but the question is what do Venezuelans think about him. That's the question, if you believe in democracy. Well, we know the answer. During the Chavez years, support for the elected government has risen very sharply. It is now the highest in Latin America by a considerable margin. He’s managed to win poll after -- election and referendum after election, one after another, about half a dozen, despite intense media opposition of a kind that you can't imagine here, and subversion by the superpower.


After all, the U.S. supported a military coup to try to overthrow him, had to back down, partly because it was quickly reversed by popular action, but partly because of a swell of protest throughout Latin America, where they just don't have the same contempt for democracy as the leadership and the media do here and don't like the idea of democratically elected governments being overthrown by the military.


Since then, the U.S. has been dedicated to subversion. It’s very probable that -- the last poll that I saw, a North American poll a couple of weeks ago, asked people who are they going to vote for in the next election. And I think it was about two-thirds said they’d vote for Chavez, and I think 4% for the next highest candidate. Well, in those circumstances, the U.S. is almost certain to turn to the standard operating procedure when you know you’re going to lose an election: try to discredit it, by getting the opposition to boycott it.


JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, you’ll be glad to know that when -- you mentioned Hugo Chavez -- when Amy and I interviewed him several months ago, he mentioned that his favorite American writer was Noam Chomsky, and he cited actually some of your books. So, I guess that we -- there ought to be a poll taken of how many leaders in the third world are reading Noam Chomsky, because you’re obviously having an effect on many of these leaders.

NOAM CHOMSKY: I don’t want to be self-serving, but I actually know quite a few examples.


AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you about Haiti. How does this fit he the picture that you’re talking about?


NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, I won’t run through the whole story, but Haiti actually also had a democratic election, of a kind that should put us to shame. They had a real democratic election in 1990, again, like Bolivia. You know, massive grassroots organizations, poor people that nobody was paying any attention to, succeeded in electing their own candidate, to everyone's astonishment. Everyone assumed the U.S.-backed candidate representing the elites and the power centers would easily win. Well, he didn’t. He got 14% of the vote. Very quickly, instantly, the U.S. moved to subvert the election -- instantly -- by what are called democracy promotion measures, meaning supporting the opposition. That’s what U.S. Aid did, and so on, try to support anyone opposed to the government.


Other measures were taken. Pretty soon there’s a military coup, led to years of vicious terror. Contrary to what people believe, the U.S. supported the coup. It continued to trade with the junta and rich elite increasingly under Clinton. Clinton actually authorized the Texaco Oil Company to provide oil to the junta and the elite, overriding formal presidential directives blocking it.


Finally, the Clinton administration decided that the public had been tortured enough, sent in the Marines. That was called democracy promotion. However, as Allan Nairn right away pointed out, and others, Aristide was restored on the condition that he accept the policies of the defeated U.S. candidate in the 1990 election, harsh neo-liberal policies, which were bound to destroy the economy, as they did, led to turmoil, disaster, continuing U.S. subversion. Finally, the Bush administration blocked aid. More turmoil and confusion then came the -- by now, the country is kind of falling apart. You can go into the details.


But, finally, the U.S. and France simply intervened and removed the President. France was particularly infuriated, because Aristide had politely called upon France to do something about the crushing debt that had been imposed on Haiti back in 1825 as punishment for their having them -- for liberating themselves from France. They had been bearing this ever since, and naturally that infuriated France. How can the Haitians dare to say this? So, the U.S. and France basically kicked him out. Horrible atrocity since. Now, they’re trying to reconstruct somehow. Again, we owe them enormous reparations, as does France, for the atrocities we have been carrying out there actually for over a century, after we took over the project of torturing Haitians from France. Is there any -- it’s hard to know what the possibilities are. I mean, it’s just -- I mean, the society has been really devastated. It’s one of the poorest in the world.


AMY GOODMAN: And the latest of Aristide being taken out of Haiti, after he was re-elected -- this, of course, February 29, 2004, on a U.S. plane with U.S. military and security and sent to the Central African Republic?


NOAM CHOMSKY: Yeah, not only that, but the U.S. won’t even allow him back into the region. I mean, it’s essentially imprison-- insisted that he be imprisoned in South Africa. There was tremendous protest by the Caribbean countries over this. The candidate who won the election is the one who was closest to him; probably if he had been running, he would have won, but the U.S. would never allow that, and, as I say, won’t even allow him into the region. Well, that's just another illustration of the near passionate hatred of democracy, which is consistent and is indeed recognized.


It’s even recognized by the scholarship, of the most prestigious scholarship, by advocates of democracy promotion. They advocated, like Thomas Carothers, head of the Carnegie Endowment Project -- was the most respected -- he advocates it and says it’s wonderful. But he also points out that the U.S. consistently had been opposed to it. There is what he calls a strong line of continuity in all administrations, namely, democracy is promoted if and only if it supports U.S. strategic and economic objectives.


In Central America, for example, where he was particularly -- he was involved in the Reagan State Department. He says, yeah, the U.S. opposed democracy and the reason he says is the U.S. would tolerate only top-down forms of democratic structures, in which traditional elites allied to the United States would remain in power in highly undemocratic societies. Yeah, that's a kind of democracy promotion that we promote, that the administration preaches and that the press and journalists hail as magnificent. Again, this is kind of North Korea.


AMY GOODMAN: And another region, of course, back to Israel, the election of Kadima, the media characterizing Kadima as the centrist party that is going to do away with many of the settlements in the West Bank, and then the election of Hamas in the Occupied Territories. Your response?


NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, I would just urge anyone who wants to look into this to compare the lead editorial in the New York Times yesterday with the lead editorial yesterday in the world's leading business journal, the London Financial Times. They’re diametrically opposed. The New York Times says it’s wonderful Israelis agreed to withdraw from the West Bank. Of course, there is the little matter of borders, but they say that's of no importance. You know, minor issue, where the borders are. Yeah, no issue, except for the people who live there. That's the New York Times.


They do -- the Times reported the anguish of the settlers that’ll have to leave. I mean, it’s kind of as if the reporting has been -- as if, say, you know, I broke into your house, took over the whole house, finally agreed -- tortured you, you know, stole everything from you and so on, and then agreed to leave you the attic and the cellar, but keep the rest of the house. And it’s -- I do that with great anguish, because I don't want to leave the attic. I kind of liked it. I mean, that's the way it’s being reported. It’s scandalous.


AMY GOODMAN: Noam Chomsky, world renowned linguist, political analyst, on the publication of his new book, Failed States.