It is a sad reality that the finest ideals and better angels too often succumb to the less noble aspects of human nature. Lincoln called for a "new birth of freedom", but what would he think of what has happened, of the new kind of chains and of temporary necessities become the norm? His war was to maintain the unity of the state, now the wars are to expand the empire.
Herein we shall mark the progress of the empire.
"Beware the military-industrial complex." Tom Engelhardt presents Chalmers Johnson - "It's Much Later Than You Think."
Chris Floyd - "Dogs of War Hijacking National Policy."
A follow up the above.
"I've got an idea, and it's a gas." What remedy was applied to those accused of having WMD? Physician, heal thyself.
When it comes to observing US and international laws, treaties and norms, the Bush administration is a serial offender. Since 2001, it's:
-- spurned efforts for nuclear disarmament to advance its weapons program and retain current stockpiles;
-- renounced the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and asserted the right to develop and test new weapons;
-- abandoned the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) because it expressly forbids the development, testing and deployment of missile defenses like its Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and other programs;
-- refuses to adopt a proposed Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) that would prohibit further weapons-grade uranium and plutonium production and prevent new nuclear weapons to be added to present stockpiles - already dangerously too high;
-- spends more on the military than the rest of the world combined plus multi-billions off-the-books, for secret programs, and for agencies like the CIA;
-- advocates preventive, preemptive and "proactive" wars globally with first-strike nuclear and other weapons under the nihilistic doctrines of "anticipatory self-defense" and remaking the world to be like America;
-- rescinded and subverted the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) to illegally develop new biowarfare weapons; in November 1969 and February 1970, Richard Nixon issued National Security Decision Memoranda (NSDM) 35 and 44; they renounced the use of lethal and other types of biological warfare and ordered existing weapons stockpiles destroyed, save for small amounts for research - a huge exploitable loophole; the Reagan and Clinton administrations took advantage; GHW Bush to a lesser degree;
-- GW Bush went further by renouncing the US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 that prohibits "the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons....;" on May 22, 1990, GHW Bush signed it into law to complete the 1972 Convention's implementation; what the father and Nixon established, GW Bush rendered null and void; "Rebuilding America's Defenses" is his central policy document for unchallengeable US hegemony; among other provisions, it illegally advocates advanced forms of biowarfare that can target specific genotypes - the genetic constitution of individual organisms.
"What if those weapons fall into the hands of the wrong people?"
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Thus the rise of the dark angels.
17 comments:
Love that 'rise of the dark angels.'
P.S. Upon reflection, angels might be stretching it a bit. Demons might be more apt! Cheers.
G'day David, thanks ... "Demons" - another name for them.
On the matter of spreading freedom and Iraq's "new found democracy", well, it goes only so fasr as the Iraqis found out in 2006 when they tried to get an agreement for US withdrawal. Gareth Porter on what transpired.
Many official and unofficial proponents of a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq are dismissing Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's demand for a U.S. timeline for withdrawal as political posturing, assuming that he will abandon it under pressure.
But that demand was foreshadowed by an episode in June 2006 in which al-Maliki circulated a draft policy calling for negotiation of just such a withdrawal timetable and the George W. Bush administration had to intervene to force the prime minister to drop it.
The context of al-Maliki's earlier advocacy of a timetable for withdrawal was the serious Iraqi effort to negotiate an agreement with seven major Sunni armed groups that had begun under his predecessor Ibrahim al-Jaafari in early 2006. The main Sunni demand in those talks had been for a timetable for full withdrawal of U.S. troops.
Under the spur of those negotiations, al-Jaafari and Iraqi national security adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaei had developed a plan for taking over security in all 18 provinces of Iraq from the United States by the end of 2007. During his first week as prime minister in late May, al-Maliki referred twice publicly to that plan.
At the same time al-Maliki began working on a draft "national reconciliation plan", which was in effect a road map to final agreement with the Sunni armed groups. The Sunday Times of London, which obtained a copy of the draft, reported Jun. 23, 2006 that it included the following language:
"We must agree on a time schedule to pull out the troops from Iraq, while at the same time building up the Iraqi forces that will guarantee Iraqi security, and this must be supported by a United Nations Security Council decision."
But:
The Iraqi government draft was already completed when Bush arrived in Baghdad Jun. 13 without any previous consultation with al-Maliki, giving the Iraqi leader five minutes' notice that Bush would be meeting him in person rather than by videoconference.
The al-Maliki cabinet sought to persuade Bush to go along with the withdrawal provision of the document. In his press conference upon returning, Bush conceded that Iraqi cabinet members in the meeting had repeatedly brought up the issue of reconciliation with the Sunni insurgents.
In fact, after Bush had left, Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, a Sunni, said he had asked Bush to agree to a timetable for withdrawal of all foreign forces. Then President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, released a statement of support for that request.
Nevertheless, Bush signaled his rejection of the Iraqi initiative in his Jun. 14 press conference, deceitfully attributing his own rejection of a timetable to the Iraqi government. "And the willingness of some to say that if we're in power we'll withdraw on a set timetable concerns people in Iraq," Bush declared.
Add another lie to the list.
What about the "Surge"?
And Chris Floyd on the matter.
I feel a song coming on ... "Pardon me if I'm sentimental when I say goodbye".
Did someone mention the statute of limitations? If only ... "Mr President, I advise you against bending over to pick up the soap."
to begin ...
.. at the beginning
-=*=-
G'day Bob. You certainly are a 'hard task' master, just keeping up with your reading lists can be exhausting. The beginning of today's is the Tomgram/Chalmers Johnson "Warning: Mercenaries at Work."
What we can see is a system out'a all control, privatised almost everything - and not 'just' by Repugs. Clinton was up to his armpits; Q: Do we think Obama will be any better? A: No, not on your Nelly.
What is startling are three: a) that it just keeps getting worse, b) that so many 'adapt,' or at least do not (effectively) object and c) how bloody pointless the whole thing is. Far from "Land of the Free," they've got equally s**t-house wages, working conditions and medical system - and all they ever seem to do is watch their wide-flat screens showing unrelievedly bad Hollywood rubbish or outright propaganda (what passes for 'news,' say) when different, or when not TV-comatose, driving humungous gas-guzzling SUVs. (None of that is freedom, but utter slavery to thoughtlessness.) Such incredible rip-offs for so little - and all the while, the planet is plunging over the greedastrophe® precipice.
part two ...
.. the chris-floyd Dogs of War
-=*=-
It makes sense that Israel is not the driver, rather very much the tool. I recall adding (but only after prompting), the I/J/Z-plex to the Iraq war reasons. I'm accepting floyd's modification.
Whereas it is true that the aim of the I/J/Z-plex is unrelieved expansion of the arguably illegal state of Israel in the direction of the unequivocally illegal "Greater Israel," it is able to, and enabled to do so, by 'flying in close formation' with US desires of ME domination and concomitant oil-theft. It suits AIPAC et al. to make a big show, and have US politicians grovel. It's exactly that, just show business. Makes 'em all feel good - except for true democracy fans, perhaps (but they don't count; not enough of 'em, and if there were, the voting-machine rigging could compensate.)
A question posed by a commenter, Q: "who is driving the bus [over] the cliff, and why?" has the answer A: The US élites, that's perfectly obvious. But how they expect to survive the apocalypse, be it 'just' financial or climate-crash (probably both & more) is beyond me. On the one hand, after the candied humming-bird tongues disappear from 'the market' they can't eat money... all the oil in the world won't help them then.
part two'n arf ...
.. the chris-floyd Elite Power and the Efficacy of Force
-=*=-
Funnily enough - or in real life perhaps not so funny, floyd did a follow-up on the very same question that I did. More on that in a minute.
Returning to the I/J/Z-plex and the Israel lobby (but really daaarlings, who would want to?) - we only have to look at the incredible outpourings following the M-W 'revelations' to instantly accept their truth. There definitely is such a thing as the Israel lobby, they do have most of the (US - & UK, Aus) politicians by the short and curlies (and don't those politicians just lurve it?) It's a special case of minority lobbying and the joke is that the lobby-ers and the lobby-ees are all basically the same; all parts of the (corrupt!) US élite which includes any Israeli élite (if that's not a contradiction in terms), so that we may term the whole show the USrael élite.
(Aside: what ultimately unites this group is that they kill - collaterals, aka innocent humans - equally easily, and just as often as they lie, steal and cheat. And that frequency may best be described as "as often as they want to.")
Now, to cut a long story short, the reason floyd gives for the USrael élite doing what they do (and that's mostly criminal, as we know from direct observation), is that a) whatever they're doing works *for them*, and b) they see no threatening change on the way. This means (looping a bit here), as we see dead-end virulent resistance to doing anything effective about the coming climate change disaster (what I call the greedastrophe®), that either this USrael élite sees no problem, or they really do think that they can ride it out.
The problem I see with this analysis, is that if this USrael élite were actually convinced, why *haven't* they (with their perfected propaganda machine); why *can't* they convince the sheople (as dumb as they are), that there is no problem? (Tip: the ice is *seen* to be melting.) Failing this convincing (means the greedastrophe is 'on,' I need no convincing), again I repeat, how are they gunna survive - when the planet's ecology collapses? And without effective countervailing measures (as the AusLibs are so desperately trying to avoid), that's what's gunna happen alright; it means *all* these absolute smart-arses are the ultimate (and come the greedastrophe, the last possible) King Canutes. As Lehrer said, on a slightly different theme: "We'll all go together, when we go..."
G'day Phil, hard task master, all the better to keep you informed ... and thinking. And always more to come, some of which might enrage you. No sticking head up backside and pretending it doesn't happen or is hard to see. Of course it is hard to see if a person sticks their head ...
For the elites who pursue their agendas despite the direction the world is heading, and the disaster they are helping to create, denial must be a factor. It suits them to be blind to what is happening, their vision is short and narrow and they are consumed by their power and greed.
Today's reading begins with Glenn Greenwald finding himself in a strange, seemingly foreign land where democracy has taken a strange form.
On the candidates, Tomdispatch presents Ira Chernus on the war and values.
On the other war and Obama, Chris Floyd -"War Without End, Amen: Into the Afghan Abyss with Obama."
Included is a link to an article from 2004 which reminds us that the murder of innocents is nothing new.
Every now and then the mask slips, and we see the true face of the system that marshals the world. For an instant, the heavy paint of sober wisdom and moral purpose falls away, and there, suddenly, with jolting clarity, is the snarling rictus of an ape.
Last week gave us two such moments: a quantum collision, where past and present co-exist temporarily, their overlapping images phasing in and out of synch, now Nixon now Bush now Kissinger now Rumsfeld, mouths, eyes, snarls morphing and shifting, with only one image holding constant between the eras -- the twisted, shivered bodies of dead innocents.
First was the release of long-secret phone transcripts from Henry Kissinger's heyday as Richard Nixon's National Security Advisor. Most stories about the release centered on the Nixon Gang's panicky efforts to deal with bad publicity from the rape-and-slaughter rampage by U.S. troops in My Lai, Vietnam. As in the current Iraqi prison scandal, the great statesmen were concerned wholly with "containing" the PR damage, not stopping the systematic atrocities -- which were, after all, being carried out at their command. Then as now, rump-covering was the order of the day.
But virtually ignored in the pile of power-talk was an extraordinary historical snapshot of a war crime in the moment of conception. It's 1970. Nixon is angry: The Air Force is not killing enough people in Cambodia, the country he has just illegally invaded without the slightest pretence of Congressional approval. The flyboys are doing "milk runs," their intelligence-gathering is too by-the-book: There are "other methods" of getting intelligence, he tells Kissinger. "You understand what I mean?" "Yes, I do," pipes the loyal retainer.
Nixon then orders Kissinger to send every available plane into Cambodia -- bombers, fighters, helicopters, prop planes -- to "crack the hell out of them," smother the entire country with deadly fire: "I want them to hit everything." Kissinger tells his own top aide, General Alexander Haig, to try to implement the plan: "He wants a massive bombing campaign in Cambodia," Kissinger says. "It's an order, it's to be done. Anything that flies on anything that moves."
That's how the system works, beneath the mask. A blustering fool issues an order, and thousands upon thousands of innocent people die. An entire country is ripped to shreds, and into the smoking ruins steps a fanatical band of crazed extremists -- the Khmer Rouge -- who murder two million more.
Then to the current bunch of sociopaths.
Now onto possibly the next eopisode in the murderous program, Iran, but, as Scott Ritter reminds us, people are already dying.
The war between the United States and Iran is on. American taxpayer dollars are being used, with the permission of Congress, to fund activities that result in Iranians being killed and wounded, and Iranian property destroyed. This wanton violation of a nation’s sovereignty would not be tolerated if the tables were turned and Americans were being subjected to Iranian-funded covert actions that took the lives of Americans, on American soil, and destroyed American property and livelihood. Many Americans remain unaware of what is transpiring abroad in their name. Many of those who are cognizant of these activities are supportive of them, an outgrowth of misguided sentiment which holds Iran accountable for a list of grievances used by the U.S. government to justify the ongoing global war on terror. Iran, we are told, is not just a nation pursuing nuclear weapons, but is the largest state sponsor of terror in the world today.
Much of the information behind this is being promulgated by Israel, which has a vested interest in seeing Iran neutralized as a potential threat. But Israel is joined by another source, even more puzzling in terms of its broad-based acceptance in the world of American journalism: the Mujahadeen-e Khalk, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group sworn to overthrow the theocracy in Tehran. The CIA today provides material support to the actions of the MEK inside Iran. The recent spate of explosions in Iran, including a particularly devastating “accident” involving a military convoy transporting ammunition in downtown Tehran, appears to be linked to an MEK operation; its agents working inside munitions manufacturing plants deliberately are committing acts of sabotage which lead to such explosions. If CIA money and planning support are behind these actions, the agency’s backing constitutes nothing less than an act of war on the part of the United States against Iran.
What was that about "state sponsors of terror"? If the CC was consistent he'd order the bombing of Merka. "Where haven't we bombed?" "We haven't bombed your office, sir." "Bomb ..."
"Anything that flies on anything that moves."
pathological, psychopathic, criminal ...
.. pathetic sociopaths[1-3]
-=*=-
From my own attempted formalisation the chezPhil morality, the 'basic' crimes are lying, cheating, stealing and killing.
By far the worst criminals in the world today - the US 'élites' (and any Zionist/Israeli 'élite' if different), plus their associated M/I-plexes, their so-called representatives and the running-dog handmaidens, the venal MSM, all collectively referred to as (self-claimed!) "rulers of the world," are currently engaging on the mainly US front (with UK, some Aus) in invasive illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq while contemplating Iran (where the initial skirmishes have, in fact, begun), and on the Zionist front aggressing outwards from Israel in as many directions as they can. I term these actions murder for spoil; the US after resources (primarily oil but also intimidatory presence), and the Zionists after land and water. Nothing much controversial there, but certainly, utterly criminal.
To illustrate this somewhat, here is a quote from an article cited yesterday by Bob (g'day):
«"Global insurgency. Crack the hell out of them. The path of action. Anything that flies on anything that moves." They should chisel these words on the White House walls, teach them in every classroom -- for this is the system, the true constitution of the American Establishment, the great and the good, the best and brightest. This is what they do, what they've always done. From the Indians to the Iraqis, whatever gets in the way of their power and privilege -- individuals, tribes, whole nations -- gets trampled, broken, ruined, slaughtered.
Yet there's nothing uniquely "American" in these criminal policies, and the hypocrisy surrounding them. It's how elites have behaved from time immemorial, from the days of the apes: baring their teeth and pounding their chests, ruling through fear and violence, beating, biting, raping, whatever it takes to keep them at the top of the tree. They disguise their savagery -- even from themselves -- with masks of pomp and piety, but what moves them is the spirit of the beast, the blind gut-lust for dominance, the ape-remnants that live on in our brains. They're too weak, too stupefied with corruption to rise above this inherent bestiality.»
[Chris Floyd /Animal House/June 4, 2004]
The quote can be taken as support for my loss of the Enlightenment lament, especially this bit from Jean Jacques Rousseau: «The Social Contract defends civil liberty and claims government should be based upon the popular will rather than divine right» - although if the time-frame is correct and the barbarism has been continuous (seems like it), then the Enlightenment was just something that happened on the way. Apart from the extra danger this barbarism is currently putting us in, it's fascinating (like a bunny trapped in the headlights) to know how these criminals - and their various apologists etc. - can function at all, let alone avoid the cognitive dissonance we imagine they make themselves prone to.
Well, I decline to even attempt to imagine the mind of a criminal, but here's some bumpf on Personality Disorders.
That article details how they might avoid 'guilty consciences' as they go about their bastardry. The criminal 'élites' plus hangers-on may well be the definitive "Me, me me!" group, they see as good as nothing beyond their obscene power-obsession. They are the toxic flies in the human soup, they must be stopped before the excess CO2-caused planet-wide climate collapse, aka the greedastrophe® stops us all.
-=*end*=-
Ref(s):
[1] pathological adj. 1 of pathology. 2 of or caused by physical or mental disorder (pathological fear of spiders). pathologically adv.
pathology n. the study or symptoms of disease. pathologist n. [Greek pathos: related to *pathetic]
pathos n. evocation of pity or sadness in speech, writing, etc. [Greek: related to *pathetic]
pathetic adj. 1 arousing pity, sadness, or contempt. 2 colloq. miserably inadequate. pathetically adv. [Greek pathos from paskho suffer]
[2] psychopath n. 1 mentally deranged person, esp. showing abnormal or violent social behaviour. 2 mentally or emotionally unstable person. psychopathic adj. [all refs POD]
[3] sociopath
noun a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behaviour.
DERIVATIVES
sociopathic adjective
sociopathy noun. [Oxford Pop-up]
G'day Phil, nice work expanding on the Floyd piece. Somewhat depressing to face the age-old behaviour patterns of elites.
Back to Afghanistan, the "good war". Oh, but is it? Or just more spin? Two articles on the matter:
Conn Hallinan.
Eric Margolis.
Now for a lack of a sense of irony moment. A lot of fuss is being made about China's clamp down on the internet. Glenn Greenwald on a lack of consistency.
The comments to the above article are well worth reading.
more on the 'Me, me, me!' ...
.. nasty, rotten narcissism[1]
-=*=-
G'day Bob, thanks for your thanks; here's another part of the puzzle:
«Narcissists are not interested enough in others to try to understand them, or even to care about meeting their needs. They learn just enough to enable the manipulation of others to meet their own needs. This works only in the short term as most people eventually realise that they're being used and that their deeper needs are not being met.
...
But the narcissist's self-focus ensures that any partner will become dissatisfied ... Even in the short term, the availability of such a [person] depends on how this might help him meet his personal needs, such as sex, security, status, financial support or social opportunities.»
[newscientist/Survival of the nastiest]
We combine narcissism with Bob's "bunch of sociopaths" to explain the current mess, illustrated by two stories 'just in:'
1. Obama says Israel could strike Iran
From correspondents in Washington | July 31, 2008
[theAus]
2. Major Arctic ice shelf cracks
July 31, 2008 00:28:00
[AusBC]
We see that 'democracy' in its current guise offers us no possible solution; both of the GWBush&Co replacement candidates offer the same "Bomb Iran" solution to a fundamentally non-problem, Iran is pursuing 'atoms for peace' as the IAEA confirms at every turn - except possibly for the Finnish 'white-anting' - from another of Bob's great links.
This US-regime of sociopaths continues their wars of murder-for-spoil in Afghanistan and Iraq, all the while stepping up the pressure on Iran. But meanwhile, in classic narcissistic fashion, they ignore - at our collective peril - the melting of the world's ice. And speaking of melting, the US economy is verging on 'melt-down,' starting with the banking/housing sector:
3. Bush signs massive housing rescue plan
July 30, 2008 22:42:00
[AusBC]
The GWBush&Co (non!) solution is to print even more money, flushing it into an already glutted 'money-market,' causing even more risk of massive inflation. But its not just a risk, some wild inflation is already with us (local house prices more than doubled under Howard/Costello), US house- (and share-) prices bubbled too, and, like all such bubbles, will - must - eventually burst:
4. House prices are a bubble waiting to burst
by Kenneth Davidson
July 31, 2008
[theAge]
Fazit: In Utopia there is no need for police; we are unfortunately forced exist in a dangerous tending to fatal dystopia made worse by the (current) lack of an effective countervailing force. These US (along with Israeli) regimes of utter, narcissistic sociopaths cannot be opposed by force, they threaten the entire world with a 'nukular' Armageddon. The only way is via the ballot-box, but that requires the also missing a) valid choice of candidates (that we do not currently have; think Repug = Dommocrat, Lab = Lib, Obama = McCain etc.), b) free, fair and complete information flows (which we do not currently have; thanks, but "No, thanks!" to the venal MSM), and finally an aware and engaged electorate. Unfortunately, we cannot look to other, less mean but still coerced regimes, think Sarkozy, Merkel; we can hardly expect the Russkies or Chinks to help us; they are also under 'nukular' threat, explicitly made real by the 1945 A-bombing war crimes.
Wake up sheople, we need people-power! Take an interest in your future; get active! Start by turning your propagandising TVs off! We must all demand justice via truth, soonest.
-=*end*=-
Ref(s):
[1] narcissism n. excessive or erotic interest in oneself. narcissistic adj. [Narkissos, name of a youth in Greek myth who fell in love with his reflection] [POD]
G'day Phil, not all is lost - Glenn Greenwald on a judge who doesn't agree with Bush on immunity.
Tom Engelhardt on the age of denial.
Really good piece.
G'day Phil, Chris Floyd gets stuck in to the criminals, linking to Glenn Greenwald along the way.
However, I do note, in just the briefest dip into the digital waters, that Cheney and the gang have been up to their old Hitlerian "let's fake a casus belli" tricks in regard to a war on Iran, while the American corporate media continues to cover up -- eagerly, slavishly -- what Glenn Greenwald rightly calls one of the most important and astounding stories of our time: how the Bush Administration completely concocted false evidence pointing to Saddam Hussein's involvement in the post-9/11 anthrax terrorism, then fed these lies to the aforementioned eager, slavish corporate media hacks at ABC. As Greenwald notes, the hacks know exactly who feed them these lies -- which were instrumental in fomenting war fever for the act of aggression against Iraq -- but they refuse to give up these conniving, traitorous wretches.
Still think you're living in a free country, with a free press? We've said it before and we'll say it again: at this point, anyone in public office who acknowledges the Bush Faction as being in any way a legitimate government -- instead of a pack of criminals in need of immediate and relentless prosecution -- is in fact complicit in the Faction's crimes.
Can't say fairer than that.
G'day Phil, all those lies .. and the odd forgery. In addition to the Niger documents we now have a claim that the WH ordered the CIA to do a bit of creative letter writing.
The Iraq Intelligence Chief, Tahir Jalil Habbush — a man still carrying with $1 million reward for capture, the Jack of Diamonds in Bush’s famous deck of wanted men — has been America’s secret source on Iraq. Starting in January of 2003, with Blair and Bush watching, his secret reports began to flow to officials on both sides of the Atlantic, saying that there were no WMD and that Hussein was acting so odd because of fear that the Iranians would find out he was a toothless tiger. The U.S. deep-sixed the intelligence report in February, “resettled” Habbush to a safe house in Jordan during the invasion and then paid him $5 million in what could only be considered hush money.
In the fall of 2003, after the world learned there were no WMD — as Habbush had foretold — the White House ordered the CIA to carry out a deception. The mission: create a handwritten letter, dated July, 2001, from Habbush to Saddam saying that Atta trained in Iraq before the attacks and the Saddam was buying yellow cake for Niger with help from a “small team from the al Qaeda organization.”
The mission was carried out, the letter was created, popped up in Baghdad, and roiled the global newcycles in December, 2003 (conning even venerable journalists with Tom Brokaw). The mission is a statutory violation of the charter of CIA, and amendments added in 1991, prohibiting CIA from conduction disinformation campaigns on U.S. soil.
Millions of people dead, injured, ill, and displaced ... yet despite all the evidence the perpetrators are not only still free but the CC is still in the WH. Of course the Dems leadership use the excuse for not acting that it would disrupt the system. It seems they consider disruption worse than corruption of the system.
'we create our own reality' ...
.. while our ecosphere goes down the tubes
-=*=-
G'day Bob, and thanks for the lede. (No, it's not a typo; lede: a journalism term for the beginning of a story.)
I too, read something about that particular WH/CIA psyop[1] recently:
«The irony is that if White House honchos had listened to what Habbush was really saying instead of putting (or wishing) words in his mouth, they might have avoided the war that destroyed their political fortunes. As early as January 2003, writes Suskind, Habbush told a British intelligence officer that Saddam, 12 years earlier, had both ended his nuclear program and destroyed his chemical weapon stockpile and was in no hurry to build them up again. "They're not going to like this downtown," said Tenet, referring to his Pennsylvania Avenue bosses. They didn't. The Habbush report was buried, the war was set in motion,»
[Louis Bayard review/Suskind "The Way of the World..."]
Irony, hypocrisy; lies & murder. Charming lot, eh?
-=*=-
There are three 'legs' to this problem:
1. The perpetrators themselves; mostly Repugs (I am not a crook Nixon, Reagan/El Salvador, Bush-the-elder/Highway of Death, GWBush&Co/Afghanistan, Iraq) but not at all exclusively Repugs, i.e. Clinton managed, even when 'slightly distracted,' say, to kill quite a few (Albright/sanctions[2,3]). I usually start my narrative of US malfeasance at the US A-bombing war crimes[4], my comment: wretched criminals the lot of 'em, string 'em all up;
2. There's the sheople® - who, in a democracy, are supposedly sovereign - but are also 'debauched with ease' aka unfairly propagandised with lies (refer TV-comatosed[5]), my comment: more vigilance required (too little vigilance, pretty soon no freedom);
3. Finally there's the corrupt and venal MSM, those 'charged' with reporting the facts (to keep the bastards honest) - but who have increasingly, not just transmitted the lies - but also amplified them[6]. My comment: traitorous swine.
-=*=-
Fazit: From my own attempted formalisation the chezPhil morality, the 'basic' crimes are lying, cheating, stealing and killing.
If one cares to look behind the pushed-paradigm, it's pretty easy to see that the putative, self-declared 'leaders of the world,' the regimes of the US (with side-kick Israel, and any others they may manage to bribe or coerce - see France/Sarkozy, say, or Germany/Merkel) are, in fact, leading the world astray. These regimes, the politicians for, on behalf of and along with their puppet-master élites lie, they cheat, they steal and they kill. All that dastardly crime to further engorge a few already filthy rich fat-cats. GWBush is their current 'best' spokesperson (actually, of course, the worst), with his jingoistic "They hate us for our freedoms!" His probable successor (both current candidates) scream "All options!" at Iran.
A vast propaganda-web, a conjured reality imposed as an obscuring veneer attempting to cover-up the ghastly underling truth, namely continuous crimes on the Nuremberg scale, invasive military attacks to enable the theft of resources (over and above what they manage with less violent "Hit Man" type rip-offs), here specifically murder for land, water (Israel) and oil (US).
They get away with it because they use force falsely 'justified' by lies; a countervailing force must arise to effectively oppose them, I suggest people-power demanded justice, enabled by full exposure of the truth.
The first required step is to get to the truth, not just "No more War!" - But first: "No more lies!"
-=*end*=-
Ref(s):
[1] Definitions of psyop on the Web:
psychological operation: military actions designed to influence the perceptions and attitudes of individuals, groups, and foreign governments
[wordnet.princeton.edu/psyop]
[2] Albright's cop-out:
«I must have been crazy; I should have answered the question by reframing it...»
[wiki/Madeleine_Albright]
My comment: she never denied that their policy had caused the deaths; in hindsight all she wanted was to 'reframe' her response - in order to spin, to better disguise their crime.
[3] A FAIR report on Albright:
«Extra! November/December 2001
"We Think the Price Is Worth It"
Media uncurious about Iraq policy's effects- there or here»
[fair/Rahul Mahajan]
[4] The most egregious lies:
«August 6, 2008
Tsuyoshi Hasegawa Re-Examines the Japanese Surrender
The Atomic Bombing of Japan
By KEVIN YOUNG»
[counterpunch/Kevin Young]
My comment: none; apart from recommending reading the lot.
[5] comatose
adjective of or in a state of deep unconsciousness for a prolonged or indefinite period, especially as a result of severe injury or illness: she had been comatose for seven months | lying in a comatose state.
n
humorous (of a person or thing) extremely exhausted, lethargic, or sleepy, typically as a result of overdrinking or taking drugs.
ORIGIN late 17th cent.: from Greek koma, komat- ‘deep sleep’ + -OSE1. [Oxford Pop-up]
[6] An incredible psyop, associating 9/11 with anthrax and Saddam via bentonite. All lies, but tricked enough sheople. Again? No, still.
«Taking the second question first, Ross tells us, "Our sources were current and former government scientists who were all involved in analyzing the substance in the letter."»
[Ross Responds to "Vital Questions" About Anthrax Report]
My comment: Ross and the (US) ABC have made their stand, they have created a bit of their own reality, although we may suspect at the 99.999% confidence level that they are lying through their teeth, we just cant prove it (yet? Whistle blowing, anyone?)
The timing was simply too convenient, right smack in the middle of the still stark 9/11 shock, a second attack striking mortal fear across their homeland, pinned (falsely, knowingly) via bentonite on Iraq. No wonder so many sheople still believe the alleged (but untrue) Saddam - 9/11 nexus. But: there was no bentonite; the anthrax was all US-made, US weaponized and US-sent.
The *big* Q: Where is an honest broker when you need one?
Ooops! For "underling," please read "underlying."
G'day Phil, theme for today - they stoop to conquer. How low can be seen in this piece by Scott Ritter on dirty tricks.
In the past two decades I have had the opportunity to participate in certain experiences pertaining to my work that fall into the category of “no one will ever believe this.” I usually file these away, calling on them only when events transpire that breathe new life into these extraordinary memories. Ron Suskind, a noted and accomplished journalist, has written a new book, “The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism,” in which he claims that the “White House had concocted a fake letter from Habbush [Tahir Jalil Habbush, the director of the Mukhabarat], to Saddam [Hussein], backdated to July 1, 2001.” According to Suskind, the letter said that “9/11 ringleader Mohammad Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq—thus showing, finally, that there was an operational link between Saddam and al Qaeda, something the Vice President’s Office had been pressing CIA to prove since 9/11 as a justification to invade Iraq.”
This is an extraordinary charge, which both the White House and the CIA vehemently deny. Suskind outlines a scenario which dates to the summer and fall of 2003, troubled times for the Bush administration as its case for invading Iraq was unraveling. I cannot independently confirm Suskind’s findings, but I, too, heard a similar story, from a source I trust implicitly. In my former line of work, intelligence, it was understood that establishing patterns of behavior was important. Past patterns of behavior tend to repeat themselves, and are thus of interest when assessing a set of seemingly separate circumstances around the same source. Of course, given the nature of the story line, it is better if I introduce this information within its proper context.
In the summer of 2003 I was approached by Harper’s Magazine to do a story on the work of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), a CIA-sponsored operation investigating Saddam’s weapons-of-mass-destruction programs in the aftermath of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. David Kay, a former International Atomic Energy Agency inspector who served briefly in Iraq in 1991 and 1992, was at that time the head of the ISG. By October 2003 the group had prepared a so-called interim report, which claimed to have eyewitness evidence of Iraqi WMD-related activities prior to the invasion in March. The key to the ISG’s interim report was the testimony of “cooperative sources,” Iraqis of unstated pedigree purportedly providing the ISG with unverifiable information. With one exception—an Iraqi nuclear scientist who had been killed by coalition forces—David Kay failed to provide the name or WMD association of any of the sources he used for his report, making any effort to verify their assertions impossible. Many of the senior Iraqis who had openly contradicted Kay’s report were, and still are to this day, muzzled behind the walls of an American prison in Baghdad. But there was another group of Iraqis, the former scientists and technicians involved in Iraq’s WMD programs who were known to have been interviewed by the ISG, and who were released back into Iraqi society. These scientists held the key to deciphering the vague pronouncements of the ISG interim report, and could help to distinguish between fact and fiction.
There's more and it does get very dirty.
y'just can't make this stuff up ...
.. spy vs. spy
-=*=-
G'day Bob,
just read your Scott Ritter piece - interesting.
Although there's no doubt that Bush&Co would try that sort'a dirty trick (see the 935 lies, anthrax/bentonite, 'outing' Plame etc.), there are complications and dangers, also for those relating such stories - quite obviously. If Bush&Co would illegally invade a country (they did), that illegal invasion now morphed into brutal occupation resulting in the otherwise avoidable deaths of perhaps well over 1mio Iraqis (it did), then 'disciplining' a few 'whistle-blowers' could easily be done by some CIA-sponsored death-squad or other. Sooo, I expect Ritter's description(s) to be thoroughly 'de-identified.' We hope so, anyway.
G'day Phil, some thoughtful pieces - Juan Cole with a very good reason not to breach international law.
Some people are very slow in appreciating this.
Tomdispatch presents Andrew Bacevich on learning the lessons of endless war.
Post a Comment