Thursday, January 05, 2006
The $4 BILLION DOLLAR industry that is America's guilty secret
Lobbying is Washington's grubby secret. Some say lobbying is part of the democratic process. Others claim it is legalised bribery, even corruption. But love it or loathe it, it is the way Washington works.
Usually you hear little about the quiet meetings, the lavish lunches and junkets that lubricate American politics. But every once in a while something comes along to open the system to what it hates most: daylight. The case of Jack Abramoff, influence-peddler extraordinaire, is one of those somethings.
Once Mr Abramoff claimed to have done nothing illegal, that his only sin was to have been too good at his job. But now his career is in ruins, a jail term of nine years or more beckons - an incarceration that would be even longer but for the plea bargain he reached yesterday with federal prosecutors.
For Mr Abramoff only contrition is left: "Words will not ever be able to express my sorrow and my profound regret for my actions and mistakes," he said in court yesterday. As for the two dozen members of Congress and their aides reputedly under investigation, they can only tremble.
If Mr Abramoff spills the beans, they may soon be contemplating a similar fate. This is potentially the biggest Congressional scandal of the modern era. It is largely (though not exclusively) Republican, and may mark the beginning of the end of the party's 11-year dominance of Capitol Hill.
Usually you hear little about the quiet meetings, the lavish lunches and junkets that lubricate American politics. But every once in a while something comes along to open the system to what it hates most: daylight. The case of Jack Abramoff, influence-peddler extraordinaire, is one of those somethings.
Once Mr Abramoff claimed to have done nothing illegal, that his only sin was to have been too good at his job. But now his career is in ruins, a jail term of nine years or more beckons - an incarceration that would be even longer but for the plea bargain he reached yesterday with federal prosecutors.
For Mr Abramoff only contrition is left: "Words will not ever be able to express my sorrow and my profound regret for my actions and mistakes," he said in court yesterday. As for the two dozen members of Congress and their aides reputedly under investigation, they can only tremble.
If Mr Abramoff spills the beans, they may soon be contemplating a similar fate. This is potentially the biggest Congressional scandal of the modern era. It is largely (though not exclusively) Republican, and may mark the beginning of the end of the party's 11-year dominance of Capitol Hill.
Venezuela’s Bolivarian Movement: Its Promise and Perils, Part I
Venezuela today, under its democratically elected President, Hugo Chavez Frias, is imbued with the spirit of Bolivarianism. It's based on the vision of Simon Bolivar, the Caracas born 19th century general who defeated the Spanish, liberated half of South America, believed in redistributive social policies and a united South America—all things Chavez has adopted in his rhetoric and actions. The ultimate objective is to overcome what Bolivar perceptively characterized as the imperial curse "to plague Latin America with misery in the name of liberty."
IMF Occupies Iraq, Riots Follow By Matthew Rothschild
In December, the International Monetary Fund, in exchange for giving a loan of $685 million to the Iraqi government, insisted that the Iraqis lift subsidies on the price of oil and open the economy to more private investment.
As the IMF said in a press release of December 23, the Iraqi government must be committed to "controlling the wage and pensions bill, reducing subsidies on petroleum products, and expanding the participation of the private sector in the domestic market for petroleum products."
The impact of the IMF extortion was swift and brutal.
"Since the Dec. 15 parliamentary election, fuel prices have increased five-fold, mostly because the outgoing government of Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari has cut subsidies as part of a debt-forgiveness deal it signed with the International Monetary Fund," the Los Angeles Times reported on December 28.
"The move has shocked Iraqis long accustomed to hefty subsidies of gasoline, kerosene, cooking gas, and other fuels."
Iraqis are getting a nasty taste of the IMF’s medicine. "Over the summer, gas was selling for about five cents a gallon," the LA Times noted. "Now it's about 65 cents, and at the end of the price increases, gasoline will cost about the same in Iraq as it does in other countries in the Persian Gulf, about $1 per gallon. The prices of kerosene, diesel, and cooking gas have seen similar or steeper increases." The price of public transportation has also gone up significantly.
Not surprisingly, these enormous price hikes have led to riots around the country, with police firing on 3,000 protesters in Nassiryeh, according to an account on Daily Kos. www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/20/11119/029,
Iraq's oil minister quit to protest the government's capitulation to the IMF. According to Daily Kos, Oil Minister Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum asked, "Is this how we repay the Iraq citizens who risked their lives to participate in the elections, by raising fuel prices in this way?"
The indestructible Ahmad Chalabi, a longtime favorite of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, replaced al-Uloum.
The Bush Administration is four-square behind the IMF deal.
"This arrangement will underpin economic stability and help lay the foundation for an open and prosperous economy in Iraq," said U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow.
What it is actually underpinning is economic instability. "It's crazy, socially and politically," Robert Mabro, former chairman of the Oxford Institute of Energy Studies, told the LA Times.
Even the Pentagon's "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" recognized the need for "balancing the need for economic reform--particularly of bloated fuel and food subsidies--with political realities."
But "political realities" on the ground—such as inciting riots and increasing discontent—don't appear to concern Bush.
For the Bush Administration, the endorsement of the IMF price increase represents a schizophrenia that’s almost clinical.
Bush is desperate to rescue his floundering Iraq policy, and yet backing the IMF plan is like throwing a drowning patient both ends of a lifeline.
The Iraqi people are sick and tired of the U.S. occupation already, to put it mildly.
Now that they are seeing their standard of living plummet, thanks to the IMF, they are going to be even more irate at the United States, which they know controls the IMF.
Caught between deciding whether to try to win hearts and minds or whether to cling to free market fantasies, Bush has once again chosen to live in fantasyland.
As the IMF said in a press release of December 23, the Iraqi government must be committed to "controlling the wage and pensions bill, reducing subsidies on petroleum products, and expanding the participation of the private sector in the domestic market for petroleum products."
The impact of the IMF extortion was swift and brutal.
"Since the Dec. 15 parliamentary election, fuel prices have increased five-fold, mostly because the outgoing government of Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari has cut subsidies as part of a debt-forgiveness deal it signed with the International Monetary Fund," the Los Angeles Times reported on December 28.
"The move has shocked Iraqis long accustomed to hefty subsidies of gasoline, kerosene, cooking gas, and other fuels."
Iraqis are getting a nasty taste of the IMF’s medicine. "Over the summer, gas was selling for about five cents a gallon," the LA Times noted. "Now it's about 65 cents, and at the end of the price increases, gasoline will cost about the same in Iraq as it does in other countries in the Persian Gulf, about $1 per gallon. The prices of kerosene, diesel, and cooking gas have seen similar or steeper increases." The price of public transportation has also gone up significantly.
Not surprisingly, these enormous price hikes have led to riots around the country, with police firing on 3,000 protesters in Nassiryeh, according to an account on Daily Kos. www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/20/11119/029,
Iraq's oil minister quit to protest the government's capitulation to the IMF. According to Daily Kos, Oil Minister Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum asked, "Is this how we repay the Iraq citizens who risked their lives to participate in the elections, by raising fuel prices in this way?"
The indestructible Ahmad Chalabi, a longtime favorite of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, replaced al-Uloum.
The Bush Administration is four-square behind the IMF deal.
"This arrangement will underpin economic stability and help lay the foundation for an open and prosperous economy in Iraq," said U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow.
What it is actually underpinning is economic instability. "It's crazy, socially and politically," Robert Mabro, former chairman of the Oxford Institute of Energy Studies, told the LA Times.
Even the Pentagon's "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" recognized the need for "balancing the need for economic reform--particularly of bloated fuel and food subsidies--with political realities."
But "political realities" on the ground—such as inciting riots and increasing discontent—don't appear to concern Bush.
For the Bush Administration, the endorsement of the IMF price increase represents a schizophrenia that’s almost clinical.
Bush is desperate to rescue his floundering Iraq policy, and yet backing the IMF plan is like throwing a drowning patient both ends of a lifeline.
The Iraqi people are sick and tired of the U.S. occupation already, to put it mildly.
Now that they are seeing their standard of living plummet, thanks to the IMF, they are going to be even more irate at the United States, which they know controls the IMF.
Caught between deciding whether to try to win hearts and minds or whether to cling to free market fantasies, Bush has once again chosen to live in fantasyland.
Evo Morales set for energy accord with Chávez
Bolivia's president-elect Evo Morales was yesterday set to seal a series of accords with Hugo Chávez, Venezuela's president, that are expected to underpin forthcoming radical reforms to Bolivia's economy and energy sector.
Mr Morales, who later this month will enter office as the first indigenous president of South America's poorest country, stopped in Caracas before heading to Europe, South Africa and China.
Venezuela's warm reception for Mr Morales, including full state honours, underscores a desire to influence Bolivia's development.
Mr Chávez formally welcomed Mr Morales into the fold of left-leaning governments in the region that are at odds with the US administration. "The axis of evil is Washington and its allies around the world, which go about threatening, invading and murdering,'' said Mr Chávez. "We are forming the axis of good."
Bolivia's incoming president and his economic advisers are likely to listen soberly to advice from Mr Chávez on how to implement state-centred reforms akin to those of the "Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela". This week the Chávez government took control of 32 privately operated oilfields ahead of their conversion into state-dominated joint ventures.
Foreign investors in Bolivia, such as Brazil's Petrobras, Spain's Repsol and British Gas, are watching closely for elaboration of Mr Morales's declared plans to "nationalise" the country's oil and gas industry.
"Those investors will be looking out for anything said by Morales or Chávez that sounds like the formation of a Bolivarian Republic of Bolivia," said one Latin American ambassador in Caracas.
With an estimated 53,000bn cubic feet, Bolivia has the second largest gas reserves in South America. Venezuela has the largest, but its gas industry is poorly developed compared with its oil industry.
Analysts said energy was the main strategic issue uniting the two countries. "Morales knows that he is not going to be able to gain any significant national income from the energy sector unless he sells some oil and gas overseas," said Stephen Johnson, Latin American analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a think-tank in Washington.
"The question is which countries. Since Venezuela has significant experience working with China, there would be some talk about how China can also be part of developing the energy sector in Bolivia."
Mr Chávez and Mr Morales were expected to sign deals for Venezuelan assistance in land reform and education. Mr Morales last week signed co-operation agreements with Fidel Castro, Cuban president, in Havana.
He was scheduled to depart for Spain to meet Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero today.
Mr Morales, who later this month will enter office as the first indigenous president of South America's poorest country, stopped in Caracas before heading to Europe, South Africa and China.
Venezuela's warm reception for Mr Morales, including full state honours, underscores a desire to influence Bolivia's development.
Mr Chávez formally welcomed Mr Morales into the fold of left-leaning governments in the region that are at odds with the US administration. "The axis of evil is Washington and its allies around the world, which go about threatening, invading and murdering,'' said Mr Chávez. "We are forming the axis of good."
Bolivia's incoming president and his economic advisers are likely to listen soberly to advice from Mr Chávez on how to implement state-centred reforms akin to those of the "Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela". This week the Chávez government took control of 32 privately operated oilfields ahead of their conversion into state-dominated joint ventures.
Foreign investors in Bolivia, such as Brazil's Petrobras, Spain's Repsol and British Gas, are watching closely for elaboration of Mr Morales's declared plans to "nationalise" the country's oil and gas industry.
"Those investors will be looking out for anything said by Morales or Chávez that sounds like the formation of a Bolivarian Republic of Bolivia," said one Latin American ambassador in Caracas.
With an estimated 53,000bn cubic feet, Bolivia has the second largest gas reserves in South America. Venezuela has the largest, but its gas industry is poorly developed compared with its oil industry.
Analysts said energy was the main strategic issue uniting the two countries. "Morales knows that he is not going to be able to gain any significant national income from the energy sector unless he sells some oil and gas overseas," said Stephen Johnson, Latin American analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a think-tank in Washington.
"The question is which countries. Since Venezuela has significant experience working with China, there would be some talk about how China can also be part of developing the energy sector in Bolivia."
Mr Chávez and Mr Morales were expected to sign deals for Venezuelan assistance in land reform and education. Mr Morales last week signed co-operation agreements with Fidel Castro, Cuban president, in Havana.
He was scheduled to depart for Spain to meet Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero today.
Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence By Rev. Martin Luther King
With everyone from George W. Bush to McDonalds trying to pimp the memory of Dr. King, it is important to remember what he was really saying one year before he was cut down -- when he was well beyond "I have a dream." The same people, including the press, excoriated then tried to marginalize Dr. King for taking his message beyond mere legal equality and re-connecting the Black Freedom Movement with the struggle against imperialism. But King's own words are on record, and with our help we can show each generation how this leader’s work was taking on a revolutionary character... and we can halt the attempt to domesticate his memory and the memory of this struggle... which continues to this day.
As we approach this year’s MLK weekend, I want to re-post his historic speech at Riverside Church, and to paraphrase Dr. King now, by saying:
Every bomb dropped over Iraq explodes from Mobile to New Orleans.
As we approach this year’s MLK weekend, I want to re-post his historic speech at Riverside Church, and to paraphrase Dr. King now, by saying:
Every bomb dropped over Iraq explodes from Mobile to New Orleans.
The launching of an outright war using nuclear warheads against Iran is now in the final planning stages.
The launching of an outright war using nuclear warheads against Iran is now in the final planning stages.
Coalition partners, which include the US, Israel and Turkey are in "an advanced stage of readiness".
Various military exercises have been conducted, starting in early 2005. In turn, the Iranian Armed Forces have also conducted large scale military maneuvers in the Persian Gulf in December in anticipation of a US sponsored attack.
Since early 2005, there has been intense shuttle diplomacy between Washington, Tel Aviv, Ankara and NATO headquarters in Brussels.
In recent developments, CIA Director Porter Goss on a mission to Ankara, requested Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan "to provide political and logistic support for air strikes against Iranian nuclear and military targets." Goss reportedly asked " for special cooperation from Turkish intelligence to help prepare and monitor the operation." (DDP, 30 December 2005).
In turn, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has given the green light to the Israeli Armed Forces to launch the attacks by the end of March:
All top Israeli officials have pronounced the end of March, 2006, as the deadline for launching a military assault on Iran.... The end of March date also coincides with the IAEA report to the UN on Iran's nuclear energy program. Israeli policymakers believe that their threats may influence the report, or at least force the kind of ambiguities, which can be exploited by its overseas supporters to promote Security Council sanctions or justify Israeli military action.
(James Petras, Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs, Global Research, December 2005)
The US sponsored military plan has been endorsed by NATO, although it is unclear, at this stage, as to the nature of NATO's involvement in the planned aerial attacks.
Coalition partners, which include the US, Israel and Turkey are in "an advanced stage of readiness".
Various military exercises have been conducted, starting in early 2005. In turn, the Iranian Armed Forces have also conducted large scale military maneuvers in the Persian Gulf in December in anticipation of a US sponsored attack.
Since early 2005, there has been intense shuttle diplomacy between Washington, Tel Aviv, Ankara and NATO headquarters in Brussels.
In recent developments, CIA Director Porter Goss on a mission to Ankara, requested Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan "to provide political and logistic support for air strikes against Iranian nuclear and military targets." Goss reportedly asked " for special cooperation from Turkish intelligence to help prepare and monitor the operation." (DDP, 30 December 2005).
In turn, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has given the green light to the Israeli Armed Forces to launch the attacks by the end of March:
All top Israeli officials have pronounced the end of March, 2006, as the deadline for launching a military assault on Iran.... The end of March date also coincides with the IAEA report to the UN on Iran's nuclear energy program. Israeli policymakers believe that their threats may influence the report, or at least force the kind of ambiguities, which can be exploited by its overseas supporters to promote Security Council sanctions or justify Israeli military action.
(James Petras, Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs, Global Research, December 2005)
The US sponsored military plan has been endorsed by NATO, although it is unclear, at this stage, as to the nature of NATO's involvement in the planned aerial attacks.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
DUBYA
"There will still be some who believe that they can affect the political outcome of Iraq through violent means."- George Bush, the "Commander-in-Chief" of the armed forces which invaded Iraq and overthrew its leadership through somewhat less than peaceful means, and whose 150,000 troops and airplanes continue to accomplish their political (and economic) aims through violent means.
Poland's Defense Minister Radek Sikorski a neo-con protege
January 4, 2006 -- Polish Defense Minister a neo-con protege. Poland's Defense Minister Radek Sikorski, a veteran senior fellow of the neo-con citadel, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), is the new darling of the neo-con media, being hailed as a "visionary" by the New York Sun, a noted neo-con outlet. Polish intelligence sources report that Sikorski became a U.S. intelligence asset during the Reagan Cold War years. Sikorski was a Solidarity leader in the 1970s. He was visiting Britain in 1981 when martial law was declared in Poland. In 1984 Sikorski became a British citizen.
Sikorski operated under the cover of a journalist in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan during the mid 1980s and in Angola in the late 1980s where he liaised with pro-U.S. UNITA guerrillas backed by apartheid South Africa and noted GOP activists, including recently convicted Jack Abramoff as well as Karl Rove friend and adviser Grover Norquist. In 2002, after Angola's government killed UNITA leader Jonas Savimbi with the help of Kellogg, Brown & Root military advisers, Sikorski penned an anti-Savimbi screed in the neo-con Wall Street Journal, dismissing his old friend and the man Ronald Reagan called the "George Washington of Africa" as a pro-Mao closeted Leninist who practiced voodoo and believed in Kwame Nkrumah and Leopold Senghor-style black consciousness ("negritude").
Sikorski is married to U.S. journalist Anne Applebaum, who serves on the editorial board of The Washington Post and dismisses the use of the term "neo-con" as paranoia aimed at discrediting the "themed revolutions" in Eastern Europe and Central Asia and other "pro-democracy" neo-con initiatives like the debacle in Iraq. [For more on the Washington Post, see today's guest column].
While at AEI from 2002 to 2005, Sikorski also served as director of the New Atlantic Initiative, a neo-con contrivance that counts among its adherents Kateryna Chumachenko Yushchenko and her husband, Viktor Yushchenko, the "Orange Revolution" President of Ukraine. Chumachenko served in the Reagan White House and State and Treasury Departments and later worked for KPMG as "Katherine Chumachenko." Chumachenko worked in the White House Public Liaison Office where she conducted outreach to various right-wing and anti-communist exile groups in the United States, including the other bastion of the neo-cons, The Heritage Foundation and Friends of Afghanistan, on whose board Afghan refugee and current Bush pro-consul in Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, sat. Khalilzad, like Chumachenko, worked in the Reagan State Department. Russian President Vladimir Putin's recent cut-off of natural gas to Ukraine, Poland, and other countries was a clear warning shot about the influence of neo-cons and exiled Israeli-based Russian oligarchs in Eastern Europe and Polish and Ukrainian backing for further U.S. military adventures in the Middle East, including attacks on Iran and Syria.
Sikorski operated under the cover of a journalist in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan during the mid 1980s and in Angola in the late 1980s where he liaised with pro-U.S. UNITA guerrillas backed by apartheid South Africa and noted GOP activists, including recently convicted Jack Abramoff as well as Karl Rove friend and adviser Grover Norquist. In 2002, after Angola's government killed UNITA leader Jonas Savimbi with the help of Kellogg, Brown & Root military advisers, Sikorski penned an anti-Savimbi screed in the neo-con Wall Street Journal, dismissing his old friend and the man Ronald Reagan called the "George Washington of Africa" as a pro-Mao closeted Leninist who practiced voodoo and believed in Kwame Nkrumah and Leopold Senghor-style black consciousness ("negritude").
Sikorski is married to U.S. journalist Anne Applebaum, who serves on the editorial board of The Washington Post and dismisses the use of the term "neo-con" as paranoia aimed at discrediting the "themed revolutions" in Eastern Europe and Central Asia and other "pro-democracy" neo-con initiatives like the debacle in Iraq. [For more on the Washington Post, see today's guest column].
While at AEI from 2002 to 2005, Sikorski also served as director of the New Atlantic Initiative, a neo-con contrivance that counts among its adherents Kateryna Chumachenko Yushchenko and her husband, Viktor Yushchenko, the "Orange Revolution" President of Ukraine. Chumachenko served in the Reagan White House and State and Treasury Departments and later worked for KPMG as "Katherine Chumachenko." Chumachenko worked in the White House Public Liaison Office where she conducted outreach to various right-wing and anti-communist exile groups in the United States, including the other bastion of the neo-cons, The Heritage Foundation and Friends of Afghanistan, on whose board Afghan refugee and current Bush pro-consul in Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, sat. Khalilzad, like Chumachenko, worked in the Reagan State Department. Russian President Vladimir Putin's recent cut-off of natural gas to Ukraine, Poland, and other countries was a clear warning shot about the influence of neo-cons and exiled Israeli-based Russian oligarchs in Eastern Europe and Polish and Ukrainian backing for further U.S. military adventures in the Middle East, including attacks on Iran and Syria.
More indications and warnings about Iran attack preparations.
January 4, 2006 -- More indications and warnings about Iran attack preparations. The National Intelligence Directorate has been busy hiring global positioning system (GPS) target mappers to work at its Underground Facility Analysis Center (UFAC), which is comprised of analysts from the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, NSA, National Geo-spatial Intelligence Agency, U.S. Strategic Command, and US Geological Survey.
The Last Word: Noam Chomsky - A Tale of Two Quagmires
Noam Chomsky has been called one of the most influential intellectuals of the 20th century, but it's an accolade the 77-year-old MIT professor doesn't take very seriously. "People just want to hear something outside the rigid dogma they're used to," he says. "They're not going to hear it in the media." The linguistics prodigy turned political theorist has been a leading mind in the antiwar movement since the early '60s; he's also still a prolific author, producing more than six books in the past five years. He spoke to NEWSWEEK's Michael Hastings about the current geopolitical climate. Excerpts:
Hastings: Where do you see Iraq heading right now?
Chomsky: Well, it's extremely difficult to talk about this because of a very rigid doctrine that prevails in the United States and Britain which prevents us from looking at the situation realistically. The doctrine, to oversimplify, is that we have to believe the United States would have so-called liberated Iraq even if its main products were lettuce and pickles and [the] main energy resource of the world were in central Africa. Anyone who doesn't accept that is dismissed as a conspiracy theorist or a lunatic or something. But anyone with a functioning brain knows that that's not true—as all Iraqis do, for example. The United States invaded Iraq because its major resource is oil. And it gives the United States, to quote [Zbigniew] Brzezinski, "critical leverage" over its competitors, Europe and Japan. That's a policy that goes way back to the second world war. That's the fundamental reason for invading Iraq, not anything else.
Once we recognize that, we're able to begin talking about where Iraq is going. For example, there's a lot of talk about the United States bringing [about] a sovereign independent Iraq. That can't possibly be true. All you have to do is ask yourself what the policies would be in a more-or-less democratic Iraq. We know what they're likely to be. A democratic Iraq will have a Shiite majority, [with] close links to Iran. Furthermore, it's right across the border from Saudi Arabia, where there's a Shiite population which has been brutally repressed by the U.S.-backed fundamentalist tyranny. If there are any moves toward sovereignty in Shiite Iraq, or at least some sort of freedom, there are going to be effects across the border. That happens to be where most of Saudi Arabia's oil is. So you can see the ultimate nightmare developing from Washington's point of view.
You were involved in the antiwar movement in the 1960s. What do you think of the Vietnam-Iraq analogy?
I think there is no analogy whatsoever. That analogy is based on a misunderstanding of Iraq, and a misunderstanding of Vietnam. The misunderstanding of Iraq I've already described. The misunderstanding of Vietnam had to do with the war aims. The United States went to war in Vietnam for a very good reason. They were afraid Vietnam would be a successful model of independent development and that would have a virus effect—infect others who might try to follow the same course. There was a very simple war aim—destroy Vietnam. And they did it. The United States basically achieved its war aims in Vietnam by [1967]. It's called a loss, a defeat, because they didn't achieve the maximal aims, the maximal aims being turning it into something like the Philippines. They didn't do that. [But] they did achieve the major aims. It was possible to destroy Vietnam and leave. You can't destroy Iraq and leave. It's inconceivable.
Was the antiwar movement more successful in the '60s than it is today?
I think it's the other way around. The United States attacked Vietnam in 1962. It took years before any protest developed. Iraq is the first time in hundreds of years of European and American history that a war was massively protested before it was launched. There was huge protest in February 2003. It had never happened in the history of the West.
Where do you put George W. Bush in the pantheon of American presidents?
He's more or less a symbol, but I think the people around him are the most dangerous administration in American history. I think they're driving the world to destruction. There are two major threats that face the world, threats of the destruction of the species, and they're not a joke. One of them is nuclear war, and the other is environmental catastrophe, and they are driving toward destruction in both domains. They're compelling competitors to escalate their own offensive military capacity—Russia, China, now Iran. That means putting their offensive nuclear missiles on hair-trigger alert.
The Bush administration has succeeded in making the United States one of the most feared and hated countries in the world. The talent of these guys is unbelievable. They have even succeeded at alienating Canada. I mean, that takes genius, literally.
Hastings: Where do you see Iraq heading right now?
Chomsky: Well, it's extremely difficult to talk about this because of a very rigid doctrine that prevails in the United States and Britain which prevents us from looking at the situation realistically. The doctrine, to oversimplify, is that we have to believe the United States would have so-called liberated Iraq even if its main products were lettuce and pickles and [the] main energy resource of the world were in central Africa. Anyone who doesn't accept that is dismissed as a conspiracy theorist or a lunatic or something. But anyone with a functioning brain knows that that's not true—as all Iraqis do, for example. The United States invaded Iraq because its major resource is oil. And it gives the United States, to quote [Zbigniew] Brzezinski, "critical leverage" over its competitors, Europe and Japan. That's a policy that goes way back to the second world war. That's the fundamental reason for invading Iraq, not anything else.
Once we recognize that, we're able to begin talking about where Iraq is going. For example, there's a lot of talk about the United States bringing [about] a sovereign independent Iraq. That can't possibly be true. All you have to do is ask yourself what the policies would be in a more-or-less democratic Iraq. We know what they're likely to be. A democratic Iraq will have a Shiite majority, [with] close links to Iran. Furthermore, it's right across the border from Saudi Arabia, where there's a Shiite population which has been brutally repressed by the U.S.-backed fundamentalist tyranny. If there are any moves toward sovereignty in Shiite Iraq, or at least some sort of freedom, there are going to be effects across the border. That happens to be where most of Saudi Arabia's oil is. So you can see the ultimate nightmare developing from Washington's point of view.
You were involved in the antiwar movement in the 1960s. What do you think of the Vietnam-Iraq analogy?
I think there is no analogy whatsoever. That analogy is based on a misunderstanding of Iraq, and a misunderstanding of Vietnam. The misunderstanding of Iraq I've already described. The misunderstanding of Vietnam had to do with the war aims. The United States went to war in Vietnam for a very good reason. They were afraid Vietnam would be a successful model of independent development and that would have a virus effect—infect others who might try to follow the same course. There was a very simple war aim—destroy Vietnam. And they did it. The United States basically achieved its war aims in Vietnam by [1967]. It's called a loss, a defeat, because they didn't achieve the maximal aims, the maximal aims being turning it into something like the Philippines. They didn't do that. [But] they did achieve the major aims. It was possible to destroy Vietnam and leave. You can't destroy Iraq and leave. It's inconceivable.
Was the antiwar movement more successful in the '60s than it is today?
I think it's the other way around. The United States attacked Vietnam in 1962. It took years before any protest developed. Iraq is the first time in hundreds of years of European and American history that a war was massively protested before it was launched. There was huge protest in February 2003. It had never happened in the history of the West.
Where do you put George W. Bush in the pantheon of American presidents?
He's more or less a symbol, but I think the people around him are the most dangerous administration in American history. I think they're driving the world to destruction. There are two major threats that face the world, threats of the destruction of the species, and they're not a joke. One of them is nuclear war, and the other is environmental catastrophe, and they are driving toward destruction in both domains. They're compelling competitors to escalate their own offensive military capacity—Russia, China, now Iran. That means putting their offensive nuclear missiles on hair-trigger alert.
The Bush administration has succeeded in making the United States one of the most feared and hated countries in the world. The talent of these guys is unbelievable. They have even succeeded at alienating Canada. I mean, that takes genius, literally.
The Guerilla War on Iraqi Oil
A war is raging in Iraq that will determine the outcome of the present occupation as well as the shape of future conflicts. It is the war for control of Iraqi oil.
Currently, America is losing the conflict in stunning fashion with little hope for change in the near future. This week the Iraqi Oil Ministry announced that oil production "has reached a post-war low" and that the "exports of crude, which had run at an average of about 1.6 million barrels per day since the end of the 2003 war, dropped to 1.2 mbpd in November and 1.1 mbpd in December." (Al Jazeera, January 2, 2006) All the indicators point to continuing difficulty with production due to the escalating violence.
At times, the export of oil has been completely cut off in both the northern and southern regions making it impossible to benefit from Iraq's prodigious natural wealth. The Iraqi resistance has grown increasingly skillful in sabotaging pipelines and facilities despite the extraordinary efforts to protect them from attack.
This is truly the face of 21st century warfare: disparate cells of armed guerillas disrupting critical energy supplies that sustain the global economy.
Currently, America is losing the conflict in stunning fashion with little hope for change in the near future. This week the Iraqi Oil Ministry announced that oil production "has reached a post-war low" and that the "exports of crude, which had run at an average of about 1.6 million barrels per day since the end of the 2003 war, dropped to 1.2 mbpd in November and 1.1 mbpd in December." (Al Jazeera, January 2, 2006) All the indicators point to continuing difficulty with production due to the escalating violence.
At times, the export of oil has been completely cut off in both the northern and southern regions making it impossible to benefit from Iraq's prodigious natural wealth. The Iraqi resistance has grown increasingly skillful in sabotaging pipelines and facilities despite the extraordinary efforts to protect them from attack.
This is truly the face of 21st century warfare: disparate cells of armed guerillas disrupting critical energy supplies that sustain the global economy.
Domestic Spying Program Is Sign the U.S. is Decaying Into a "Police State"
Former NSA intelligence agent Russell Tice condemns reports that the Agency has been engaged in eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without court warrants. Tice has volunteered to testify before Congress about illegal black ops programs at the NSA. Tice said, "The freedom of the American people cannot be protected when our constitutional liberties are ignored and our nation has decayed into a police state."
'Good (FAKE) News' From Iraq - We're losing the war – but don't worry, the neocons are making the bucks...
The news that the Lincoln Group, a heretofore obscure public relations firm owned and operated by GOP hacks, has been planting "good news from Iraq" stories in the Iraqi media (and now even paying Sunni Muslim clerics to get on board the "democracy" choo-choo train) has been all over the media, but less noted is the fact that at least one prominent neoconservative with a number of interesting views and connections – Michael Rubin, formerly with the Coalition Provisional Authority, and now a freelance kvetch – is also milking the same cash cow.
EXCLUSIVE: BILLION DOLLAR BUNKER - U.S. plans Baghdad embassy more secure than Pentagon
AMERICA is to spend £1billion on an embassy in Baghdad "more secure than the Pentagon".
Plans for the hi-tech complex are being kept secret because of the terrorist threat in Iraq.
The exact location is not being released until later this year but it is likely to be built in the heavily fortified Green Zone area where the Iraqi government and US military command is based.
The embassy will be guarded by 15ft blast walls and ground-to-air missiles and the main building will have bunkers for use during air offensives.
The grounds will include as many as 300 houses for consular and military officials.
And a large-scale barracks will be built for Marines who will protect what will be Washington's biggest and most secure overseas building.
A US source in the Middle East said last night: "Plans for the embassy building are being kept behind closed doors because of the terrorist threat.
"It will be more secure than The Pentagon because it will be under constant threat from attack." The Green Zone is the safest part of Baghdad, surrounded by concrete blast walls and checkpoints.
The US also wants to build four massive military superbases around Iraq's capital.
The plans will fuel speculation they want to keep a firm foothold in Iraq for many years.
An Iraqi security source said last night: "The plans for the embassy building will make it the largest and best protected diplomatic building overseas for the US.
"You may as well move the Pentagon to Iraq. It will be amazingly secure but it also flies in the face of claims American is preparing to leave Iraq to be policed and governed by Iraqis.
"Plans for four superbases across the country will only reinforce the view that the US is here to stay for the duration."
The move comes despite Donald Rumsfeld revealing last week that US troop numbers in Iraq are to be reduced by 7,000 to 153,000.
Tony Blair has also predicted British troops could start pulling out this May.
Backing among the American public for President Bush's action in Iraq has fallen. Despite the opposition a Kuwait-based construction company has already been handed £175million ($300 million) of the building deal.
Plans for four huge military bases placed strategically around Baghdad are also being drawn up.
The superbases will be in central Iraq, close to the capital, and also to the north, west and east of Baghdad.
Several other Middle Eastern and American building firms are tendering for the remaining budget.
Funding will probably come from Iraqi oil revenues channelled into redeveloping the country.
America has a string of 'secret' military bases throughout the Gulf states, including Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar.
The huge desert complexes, including airstrips and aircraft hangars, are up to 20 miles square and are not featured on civilian maps.
They started to appear after the first Gulf War 15 years ago, infuriating Islamic extremists and the al-Qaeda terror network.
Plans for the hi-tech complex are being kept secret because of the terrorist threat in Iraq.
The exact location is not being released until later this year but it is likely to be built in the heavily fortified Green Zone area where the Iraqi government and US military command is based.
The embassy will be guarded by 15ft blast walls and ground-to-air missiles and the main building will have bunkers for use during air offensives.
The grounds will include as many as 300 houses for consular and military officials.
And a large-scale barracks will be built for Marines who will protect what will be Washington's biggest and most secure overseas building.
A US source in the Middle East said last night: "Plans for the embassy building are being kept behind closed doors because of the terrorist threat.
"It will be more secure than The Pentagon because it will be under constant threat from attack." The Green Zone is the safest part of Baghdad, surrounded by concrete blast walls and checkpoints.
The US also wants to build four massive military superbases around Iraq's capital.
The plans will fuel speculation they want to keep a firm foothold in Iraq for many years.
An Iraqi security source said last night: "The plans for the embassy building will make it the largest and best protected diplomatic building overseas for the US.
"You may as well move the Pentagon to Iraq. It will be amazingly secure but it also flies in the face of claims American is preparing to leave Iraq to be policed and governed by Iraqis.
"Plans for four superbases across the country will only reinforce the view that the US is here to stay for the duration."
The move comes despite Donald Rumsfeld revealing last week that US troop numbers in Iraq are to be reduced by 7,000 to 153,000.
Tony Blair has also predicted British troops could start pulling out this May.
Backing among the American public for President Bush's action in Iraq has fallen. Despite the opposition a Kuwait-based construction company has already been handed £175million ($300 million) of the building deal.
Plans for four huge military bases placed strategically around Baghdad are also being drawn up.
The superbases will be in central Iraq, close to the capital, and also to the north, west and east of Baghdad.
Several other Middle Eastern and American building firms are tendering for the remaining budget.
Funding will probably come from Iraqi oil revenues channelled into redeveloping the country.
America has a string of 'secret' military bases throughout the Gulf states, including Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar.
The huge desert complexes, including airstrips and aircraft hangars, are up to 20 miles square and are not featured on civilian maps.
They started to appear after the first Gulf War 15 years ago, infuriating Islamic extremists and the al-Qaeda terror network.
Secret Invasion: US Troops Steal into Paraguay
The Bush administration has sent troops into Paraguay. They are there ostensibly for humanitarian and counterterrorism purposes. The action coincides with growing left unity in South America, military buildup in the region and burgeoning independent trade relationships.
In a speech on July 26 in Havana, Fidel Castro took note of the incursion and called upon North American activists to oppose it. In that vein, an inquiry is in order as to why the US government has inserted Paraguay into its strategic plan for South America. In addition, we should look at factors that favor Bush administration schemes for the region and others that work against US plans.
In December 2004, the Bush administration canceled $330 million in economic and military aid to 10 South American countries. They were being penalized for turning down a US request for granting its soldiers immunity from prosecution for crimes they commit within the countries’ borders.
On May 5, however, the government of Paraguay took the bait. It signed an agreement authorizing an 18-month stay, automatically extended, for US soldiers and civilian employees. The previous limit had been set at six months. On May 26, in a secret session, Paraguay’s Congress passed legislation protecting US soldiers from prosecution for criminal activity, both within Paraguay and by the International Criminal Court.
Reportedly, 400 or 500 US troops – estimates vary – arrived in Paraguay on July 1, with planes, weapons, equipment and ammunition. They are billeted at a base near Mariscal Estigarribia, a small city located 200 kilometers from the Bolivian border in the arid, sparsely populated Chaco area of Paraguay. That facility, built by US contractors in the waning years of the Stroessner dictatorship (1954-1989), offers a runway long enough to accommodate large military transport planes and bombers. It provides barrack space for 16,000 troops.
Journalist and human rights activist Alfredo Boccia Paz, stated in Asuncion that immunity from prosecution for US soldiers, extension of their stay, and joint military exercises all provide the groundwork for the eventual installation of a US base in Paraguay. He quoted Argentine Nobel Peace laureate Adolfo Pérez Esquivel: “Once the United States arrives, it takes it a long time to leave. And that really frightens me.”
The US embassy in Paraguay declared that the United States has “absolutely no intention of establishing a military base anywhere in Paraguay” and “has no intention to station soldiers for a lengthy period in Paraguay.” The government of Paraguay seconded that notion. Brazil, however, responded. In late July, its army undertook military maneuvers along that country’s border with Paraguay. Paratroopers staged a mock occupation of the Furnas electrical substation, located on the Brazilian border with Paraguay.
Paraguay’s vice president, Luis Castiglioni, met with Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and former Assistant Secretary of State for Latin American Affairs Roger Noriega last July in Washington. Observers suggested that this welcoming committee was unusually high-powered for a visiting vice president of a small South American nation. According to Rumsfeld, experts would soon be going to Paraguay to develop a “planning seminar on systems for national security.” The secretary visited Paraguay in August. The FBI announced that it would be opening an office in Paraguay in 2006.
The official US version of the Paraguay initiative is that for the next 18 months, in addition to joint military exercises, 13 US military teams would be working on humanitarian aide projects, provide counterterrorism and police training and ameliorate the effects of poverty. It turns out that US military personnel have been providing medical care for poor peasants in a northern province since 2002. Boccia Paz commented: “These missions are always disguised as humanitarian aid.… What Paraguay does not and cannot control is the total number of agents that enter the country.”
There is of course no shortage of US bases in Latin America. They are located in Guantánamo, Cuba; Fort Buchanan and Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico; Soto Cano, Honduras; and Comalapa, El Salvador. New US air bases are situated in Reina Beatriz, Aruba; Hato Rey, Curacao; and Manta in Ecuador. The latter was officially described as a weather station on a dusty road, until it came out that a full-fledged air base had materialized on the site at a cost of $80 million. Washington also operates a network of 17 land-based radar stations (three in Peru, four in Colombia, plus 10 mobile radar stations in secret locations.) All of these installations come are under the control of the US Southern Command, based in Miami.
The US rationale for converting Paraguay into a military satellite is worth exploring. For one thing, Washington is responding in catch-up fashion to mounting popular resistance in the region to US bullying. In neighboring Bolivia, for example, two US-friendly presidents have been chased from office in the past two years. And mass opposition to the US-backed candidate in last December’s national election was no exception to the trend.
There’s more. Paraguay’s neighbor, Uruguay, put a social democrat into the presidency in 2004, and last February President Kirchner of Argentina violated world financial orthodoxy when his government negotiated a 60 percent cut in Argentina’s $82 billion debt obligations. Both Argentina and Brazil have quietly rejected the FTAA. Paraguay has joined them in the South American Common Market (Mercosur), which shelters its members from US and International Monetary Fund dictates. For Paraguay to defect would serve US ends.
Washington took major exception to declarations emanating from a gathering March 29, 2005 of Brazilian, Colombian, Venezuelan and Spanish heads of state at Ciudad Guayana, Venezuela. They had discussed the use of raw materials and regional trade patterns to combat poverty and secure peace in South America. A few weeks later Washington was miffed when its candidate for the secretary generalship of the Organization of American States was rejected. And right under the US nose, Latin American nations are coming together to form Telesur and Petrosur, continent-wide television and energy corporations, and developing banking services that serve people’s needs.
Natural resources may also figure into the US motivations for expanding its military presence in South America. One branch of the main opening for a huge Bolivian natural gas field apparently crosses the international border and is accessible in Paraguay at the Independencia I site, not far from Mariscal Estigarribia. If US troops occupied the base there, they would be in striking distance of the Bolivian provinces of Santa Cruz and Tarija, where US natural gas corporations are active. Bolivia will soon be voting on autonomy for the provinces. A “yes” vote is expected to result in privatization. In the event of civil unrest following that outcome, the corporations could call for military protection.
The military base overlies the Guarani aquifer, one of the world’s largest underground fresh water reserves. Already water wars have riled Bolivian politics. Oligarchic interests in both the United States and South America have great longings to advance the process of turning water into a commodity.
The Bush administration has an additional interest in Paraguay through its war on terrorism. The so-called triple border, where Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay meet along both sides of the Parana River, is the storied locus for smuggling, money laundering, commerce in child prostitutes, counterfeit operations, and fixing of illegal border crossings. Some 20,000 Middle Eastern, Muslim expatriates, most of them Lebanese in origin, live in Ciudad del Este on the Paraguayan side of the river and Foz do Iguacu in Brazil. The cities supposedly are centers for Islamic extremism and sources of funding for terrorist groups. Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah operatives reportedly have passed through the area, and training camps, sleeper cells, and passport factories are said to be located there. After September 11, 40 FBI agents joined Paraguayan colleagues to investigate some of these networks. Dozens of suspects were arrested. US military authorities advertise their operatives moving into Paraguay as experts in counterterrorism.
US meddling in South America has great potential to add to existing tensions in the region as it adds its might to ongoing South American military expansion. According to Uruguayan Raúl Zibechi, an expert on the continent’s military landscape, South America is experiencing unprecedented military growth. Nations there have reacted to the excesses of US Plan Colombia and to new military modalities, particularly the privatization of military forces on display in Columbia. They are also attempting to emulate Brazil’s new posture of strategic military autonomy. And, as is their habit, ruling circles in many countries, following Washington’s lead, respond to social unrest through military expansion.
In December 2004, Venezuela agreed to buy 110,000 Kalashnikov rifles, 33 helicopters and 50 fighter-bombers from Russia. Spain supplied Venezuela with naval aeronautical material, 10 transport planes, and four coast-guard cutters. Venezuela will be buying 50 training and combat jets from Brazil. Venezuela earlier this year activated a two million-member reserve component of its national military force.
Yet according to the journal Military Power Review Venezuela comes in at sixth place among South American nations in terms of military strength. Brazil is far in the lead; Peru places second; Argentina, third; followed by Chile and Colombia.
Increased military power, operating in tandem with nationalist stirrings, may inhibit US military meddling. Brazil, for example, with its own strategic defense plan and brisk economic growth, is an unlikely US acolyte. The nation is the 10th largest industrial power in the world and has become the world’s fifth largest arms exporter. Brazilian industry builds warships, several types of fighter jets, and is constructing a nuclear submarine. And to facilitate its expanded trade with China, Brazil is paying 70 percent of the $1 billion cost of a 1,500 mile long highway that extends from Peruvian ports to Santos on Brazil’s Atlantic coast.
Brazil recently sent military planners to Vietnam to learn about guerrilla war. The head of Brazil’s Amazon military command, General Claudio Barbosa, has predicted that Brazil may in the future face wars similar to the war that convulsed Vietnam and the one transpiring in Iraq now. The priority would be guerrilla warfare, “an option the army will not hesitate to adopt facing a confrontation with another country or group of countries with greater economic and military power.” What nation could the general be thinking of?
Brazil opposes Plan Colombia. The nationalist orientation of its industrial leaders persuaded them to put off joining FTAA. Brazil has no US bases on its soil, nor does Brazil engage in joint military exercises with the United States. Military cooperation between Brazil and Argentina apparently is flourishing, and in February, Brazil signed strategic accords with Venezuela. The Brazilian example of independent pursuit of national interests has emboldened other South American nations.
The single-minded pursuit of national interests, however, may work against popular struggle and Latin American unity. Analysts agree that Brazil and Argentina’s preoccupation with internal interests has created a power vacuum that encouraged Washington to court Paraguay successfully. Relations between the two nations have long been plagued by trade clashes.
Ideally, Brazil might have utilized its economic power to further Latin American unity and ward off predatory US behavior. Instead it operates according to free market rules and, unlike Venezuela, looks for salvation through from the US-led world market economy, distancing itself from Latin America’s agenda. Worse, jostling for market advantage creates divisions that lay the region open to tactics of divide and rule.
The Herculean labors of unified democratic struggle elsewhere in Latin America point to strategies through which Bush scheming and US military probing in the region might be resisted.
The example of the FARC-EP, in its survival and apparent growth, has meaning for revolutionaries far beyond Colombia’s borders. The organization now maintains a presence in nearly 100 percent of the municipalities in Colombia, and, according to Monthly Review, “with the exception of Cuba, [the FARC-EP] has become the largest and most powerful revolutionary force – politically and militarily – within the Western Hemisphere.”
Chávez forces in Venezuela, under the aegis of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), have fused the twin causes of Latin American unity and social justice. Mass protests in Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, even Chile keep empire minders in Washington on edge. The point here is that growing solidarity on the part of US activists with struggles throughout Latin America may act as a brake on US meddling in Paraguay.
Opposition likely will materialize within Paraguay itself. In recent years peasants there have mounted protests against privatization, economic restrictions imposed by the International Monetary Fund, unfair land holding patterns, and antiterrorism legislation.
There is no lack of awareness. Orlando Castillo of the human rights group Servicio Páz y Justicia recalls that, “US soldiers taught torture and other forms of human rights violations in courses at the School of the Americas.” He warns that “the United States has strong aspirations to convert Paraguay into a second Panama for its troops and is not far removed from reaching its objective of controlling the Southern Cone.”
While attending the 2nd Jubilee South World Assembly in Havana, Sixto Pereira of the Paraguayan Initiative for People’s Integration told Cuban-based Prensa Latina:
We demand the abolition of regulations that harbor and give impunity to Pentagon troops. It is a demand in favor of Paraguay and Latin American integration.
Pereira indicated that mobilization against the presence of US troops is gaining momentum in Paraguay.
In a speech on July 26 in Havana, Fidel Castro took note of the incursion and called upon North American activists to oppose it. In that vein, an inquiry is in order as to why the US government has inserted Paraguay into its strategic plan for South America. In addition, we should look at factors that favor Bush administration schemes for the region and others that work against US plans.
In December 2004, the Bush administration canceled $330 million in economic and military aid to 10 South American countries. They were being penalized for turning down a US request for granting its soldiers immunity from prosecution for crimes they commit within the countries’ borders.
On May 5, however, the government of Paraguay took the bait. It signed an agreement authorizing an 18-month stay, automatically extended, for US soldiers and civilian employees. The previous limit had been set at six months. On May 26, in a secret session, Paraguay’s Congress passed legislation protecting US soldiers from prosecution for criminal activity, both within Paraguay and by the International Criminal Court.
Reportedly, 400 or 500 US troops – estimates vary – arrived in Paraguay on July 1, with planes, weapons, equipment and ammunition. They are billeted at a base near Mariscal Estigarribia, a small city located 200 kilometers from the Bolivian border in the arid, sparsely populated Chaco area of Paraguay. That facility, built by US contractors in the waning years of the Stroessner dictatorship (1954-1989), offers a runway long enough to accommodate large military transport planes and bombers. It provides barrack space for 16,000 troops.
Journalist and human rights activist Alfredo Boccia Paz, stated in Asuncion that immunity from prosecution for US soldiers, extension of their stay, and joint military exercises all provide the groundwork for the eventual installation of a US base in Paraguay. He quoted Argentine Nobel Peace laureate Adolfo Pérez Esquivel: “Once the United States arrives, it takes it a long time to leave. And that really frightens me.”
The US embassy in Paraguay declared that the United States has “absolutely no intention of establishing a military base anywhere in Paraguay” and “has no intention to station soldiers for a lengthy period in Paraguay.” The government of Paraguay seconded that notion. Brazil, however, responded. In late July, its army undertook military maneuvers along that country’s border with Paraguay. Paratroopers staged a mock occupation of the Furnas electrical substation, located on the Brazilian border with Paraguay.
Paraguay’s vice president, Luis Castiglioni, met with Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and former Assistant Secretary of State for Latin American Affairs Roger Noriega last July in Washington. Observers suggested that this welcoming committee was unusually high-powered for a visiting vice president of a small South American nation. According to Rumsfeld, experts would soon be going to Paraguay to develop a “planning seminar on systems for national security.” The secretary visited Paraguay in August. The FBI announced that it would be opening an office in Paraguay in 2006.
The official US version of the Paraguay initiative is that for the next 18 months, in addition to joint military exercises, 13 US military teams would be working on humanitarian aide projects, provide counterterrorism and police training and ameliorate the effects of poverty. It turns out that US military personnel have been providing medical care for poor peasants in a northern province since 2002. Boccia Paz commented: “These missions are always disguised as humanitarian aid.… What Paraguay does not and cannot control is the total number of agents that enter the country.”
There is of course no shortage of US bases in Latin America. They are located in Guantánamo, Cuba; Fort Buchanan and Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico; Soto Cano, Honduras; and Comalapa, El Salvador. New US air bases are situated in Reina Beatriz, Aruba; Hato Rey, Curacao; and Manta in Ecuador. The latter was officially described as a weather station on a dusty road, until it came out that a full-fledged air base had materialized on the site at a cost of $80 million. Washington also operates a network of 17 land-based radar stations (three in Peru, four in Colombia, plus 10 mobile radar stations in secret locations.) All of these installations come are under the control of the US Southern Command, based in Miami.
The US rationale for converting Paraguay into a military satellite is worth exploring. For one thing, Washington is responding in catch-up fashion to mounting popular resistance in the region to US bullying. In neighboring Bolivia, for example, two US-friendly presidents have been chased from office in the past two years. And mass opposition to the US-backed candidate in last December’s national election was no exception to the trend.
There’s more. Paraguay’s neighbor, Uruguay, put a social democrat into the presidency in 2004, and last February President Kirchner of Argentina violated world financial orthodoxy when his government negotiated a 60 percent cut in Argentina’s $82 billion debt obligations. Both Argentina and Brazil have quietly rejected the FTAA. Paraguay has joined them in the South American Common Market (Mercosur), which shelters its members from US and International Monetary Fund dictates. For Paraguay to defect would serve US ends.
Washington took major exception to declarations emanating from a gathering March 29, 2005 of Brazilian, Colombian, Venezuelan and Spanish heads of state at Ciudad Guayana, Venezuela. They had discussed the use of raw materials and regional trade patterns to combat poverty and secure peace in South America. A few weeks later Washington was miffed when its candidate for the secretary generalship of the Organization of American States was rejected. And right under the US nose, Latin American nations are coming together to form Telesur and Petrosur, continent-wide television and energy corporations, and developing banking services that serve people’s needs.
Natural resources may also figure into the US motivations for expanding its military presence in South America. One branch of the main opening for a huge Bolivian natural gas field apparently crosses the international border and is accessible in Paraguay at the Independencia I site, not far from Mariscal Estigarribia. If US troops occupied the base there, they would be in striking distance of the Bolivian provinces of Santa Cruz and Tarija, where US natural gas corporations are active. Bolivia will soon be voting on autonomy for the provinces. A “yes” vote is expected to result in privatization. In the event of civil unrest following that outcome, the corporations could call for military protection.
The military base overlies the Guarani aquifer, one of the world’s largest underground fresh water reserves. Already water wars have riled Bolivian politics. Oligarchic interests in both the United States and South America have great longings to advance the process of turning water into a commodity.
The Bush administration has an additional interest in Paraguay through its war on terrorism. The so-called triple border, where Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay meet along both sides of the Parana River, is the storied locus for smuggling, money laundering, commerce in child prostitutes, counterfeit operations, and fixing of illegal border crossings. Some 20,000 Middle Eastern, Muslim expatriates, most of them Lebanese in origin, live in Ciudad del Este on the Paraguayan side of the river and Foz do Iguacu in Brazil. The cities supposedly are centers for Islamic extremism and sources of funding for terrorist groups. Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah operatives reportedly have passed through the area, and training camps, sleeper cells, and passport factories are said to be located there. After September 11, 40 FBI agents joined Paraguayan colleagues to investigate some of these networks. Dozens of suspects were arrested. US military authorities advertise their operatives moving into Paraguay as experts in counterterrorism.
US meddling in South America has great potential to add to existing tensions in the region as it adds its might to ongoing South American military expansion. According to Uruguayan Raúl Zibechi, an expert on the continent’s military landscape, South America is experiencing unprecedented military growth. Nations there have reacted to the excesses of US Plan Colombia and to new military modalities, particularly the privatization of military forces on display in Columbia. They are also attempting to emulate Brazil’s new posture of strategic military autonomy. And, as is their habit, ruling circles in many countries, following Washington’s lead, respond to social unrest through military expansion.
In December 2004, Venezuela agreed to buy 110,000 Kalashnikov rifles, 33 helicopters and 50 fighter-bombers from Russia. Spain supplied Venezuela with naval aeronautical material, 10 transport planes, and four coast-guard cutters. Venezuela will be buying 50 training and combat jets from Brazil. Venezuela earlier this year activated a two million-member reserve component of its national military force.
Yet according to the journal Military Power Review Venezuela comes in at sixth place among South American nations in terms of military strength. Brazil is far in the lead; Peru places second; Argentina, third; followed by Chile and Colombia.
Increased military power, operating in tandem with nationalist stirrings, may inhibit US military meddling. Brazil, for example, with its own strategic defense plan and brisk economic growth, is an unlikely US acolyte. The nation is the 10th largest industrial power in the world and has become the world’s fifth largest arms exporter. Brazilian industry builds warships, several types of fighter jets, and is constructing a nuclear submarine. And to facilitate its expanded trade with China, Brazil is paying 70 percent of the $1 billion cost of a 1,500 mile long highway that extends from Peruvian ports to Santos on Brazil’s Atlantic coast.
Brazil recently sent military planners to Vietnam to learn about guerrilla war. The head of Brazil’s Amazon military command, General Claudio Barbosa, has predicted that Brazil may in the future face wars similar to the war that convulsed Vietnam and the one transpiring in Iraq now. The priority would be guerrilla warfare, “an option the army will not hesitate to adopt facing a confrontation with another country or group of countries with greater economic and military power.” What nation could the general be thinking of?
Brazil opposes Plan Colombia. The nationalist orientation of its industrial leaders persuaded them to put off joining FTAA. Brazil has no US bases on its soil, nor does Brazil engage in joint military exercises with the United States. Military cooperation between Brazil and Argentina apparently is flourishing, and in February, Brazil signed strategic accords with Venezuela. The Brazilian example of independent pursuit of national interests has emboldened other South American nations.
The single-minded pursuit of national interests, however, may work against popular struggle and Latin American unity. Analysts agree that Brazil and Argentina’s preoccupation with internal interests has created a power vacuum that encouraged Washington to court Paraguay successfully. Relations between the two nations have long been plagued by trade clashes.
Ideally, Brazil might have utilized its economic power to further Latin American unity and ward off predatory US behavior. Instead it operates according to free market rules and, unlike Venezuela, looks for salvation through from the US-led world market economy, distancing itself from Latin America’s agenda. Worse, jostling for market advantage creates divisions that lay the region open to tactics of divide and rule.
The Herculean labors of unified democratic struggle elsewhere in Latin America point to strategies through which Bush scheming and US military probing in the region might be resisted.
The example of the FARC-EP, in its survival and apparent growth, has meaning for revolutionaries far beyond Colombia’s borders. The organization now maintains a presence in nearly 100 percent of the municipalities in Colombia, and, according to Monthly Review, “with the exception of Cuba, [the FARC-EP] has become the largest and most powerful revolutionary force – politically and militarily – within the Western Hemisphere.”
Chávez forces in Venezuela, under the aegis of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), have fused the twin causes of Latin American unity and social justice. Mass protests in Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, even Chile keep empire minders in Washington on edge. The point here is that growing solidarity on the part of US activists with struggles throughout Latin America may act as a brake on US meddling in Paraguay.
Opposition likely will materialize within Paraguay itself. In recent years peasants there have mounted protests against privatization, economic restrictions imposed by the International Monetary Fund, unfair land holding patterns, and antiterrorism legislation.
There is no lack of awareness. Orlando Castillo of the human rights group Servicio Páz y Justicia recalls that, “US soldiers taught torture and other forms of human rights violations in courses at the School of the Americas.” He warns that “the United States has strong aspirations to convert Paraguay into a second Panama for its troops and is not far removed from reaching its objective of controlling the Southern Cone.”
While attending the 2nd Jubilee South World Assembly in Havana, Sixto Pereira of the Paraguayan Initiative for People’s Integration told Cuban-based Prensa Latina:
We demand the abolition of regulations that harbor and give impunity to Pentagon troops. It is a demand in favor of Paraguay and Latin American integration.
Pereira indicated that mobilization against the presence of US troops is gaining momentum in Paraguay.
Jack Abramoff's "Cesspool of Corruption"
Top Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff is set to sing, and his long list of former buddies in Congress and the Bush Administration are quaking in anticipation of possible indictments stemming from the consummate Beltway hustler’s crass reign as the king of K Street.
“Casino Jack,” a former head of the College Republicans and a “Pioneer”-grade fundraiser for the Bush 2000 campaign, pleaded guilty to three felony counts of conspiracy, mail fraud and tax evasion in D.C. yesterday and is set to appear in Florida today to plead guilty to fraud and conspiracy on separate charges. Abramoff and other defendants also must repay over $25 million to defrauded clients and $1.7 million to the IRS.
But most important for the nation is that Abramoff is now detailing the massive web of corruption he spun inside the Beltway which has already snared a top Bush official, procurement chief David H. Safavian, on charges of lying and obstructing a criminal investigation, and reportedly threatens dozens of other D.C. players.
“When this is all over, this will be bigger than any [government scandal] in the last 50 years, both in the amount of people involved and the breadth to it,” Stan Brand, a former U.S. House counsel who specializes in representing public officials accused of wrongdoing, told Bloomberg News. “It will include high-ranking members of Congress and executive branch officials.”
Some of the Wild West feel of this Beltway corruption was captured in Saturday’s Washington Post expose, “The DeLay-Abramoff Money Trail.” It documents in chilling detail how, among other scams, Abramoff funneled a portion of the millions he had been skimming from Indian casino operators with a cool million from two Russian energy moguls through a shell organization called the U.S. Family Network—and from there into the coffers of politicians in a position to help his clients.
Ironically touting its commitment to “moral fitness” for the nation, the front group with the multi-million dollar budget had a single staff member housed in the backroom of a capital townhouse it owned and rented out to other organizations linked to Abramoff and Tom DeLay--the latter’s staffers called it, ominously, DeLay’s “safe house.” This is apparently why DeLay felt the need to tout the U.S. Family Network in a 1999 fundraising letter as “a powerful nationwide organization dedicated to restoring our government to citizen control.”
It was run by Edwin A. Buckham, DeLay’s former chief of staff, whose lobbying firm, the Alexander Strategy Group, carried Delay’s wife Christine on its payroll. But the moral “fitness” of such cronyism pales in comparison to the scandal of how Abramoff drummed up support for his varied clients under the cover of conservative morality.
For example, in order to block the ambitions of a rival tribe to the Choctaw Indians who had paid Abramoff millions, the U.S. Family Network sent a mailing to Alabama residents warning shrilly that, “The American family is under attack from all sides: crime, drugs, pornography, and one of the least talked about but equally as destructive – gambling. We need your help today to prevent the Poarch Creek Indians from building casinos in Alabama.” The letter conveniently failed to mention, however, that the U.S. Family Network had received at least $250,000 from the gambling proceeds of the Choctaws.
In another scam detailed in the Post story (which could be quickly optioned by Hollywood for a thriller), players in the mafia-dominated Russian energy industry slid a cool $1 million payment through a now-defunct London law firm into the U.S. Family Network’s account – which was, de facto, a slush fund for the Abramoff-DeLay network.
Citing the Rev. Christopher Geeslin, who served as a titular leader of the U.S. Family Network, the Post reported that Buckham told the reverend the payment was intended to secure Delay’s support on legislation forcing the International Monetary Fund to bail out the faltering Russian economy without demanding the country raise taxes on its energy and other profitable industries. Right on cue, DeLay found his way onto Fox News Sunday to take up the Russian’s viewpoint: “They are trying to force Russia to raise taxes at a time when they ought to be cutting taxes in order to get a loan from the IMF,” he said. “That’s just outrageous.” The IMF backed down.
This is just an initial peek into the sordid world being revealed by Abramoff and two of his key cronies now spilling the beans to federal investigators. But in the bigger picture, what we are witnessing is the death throes of the GOP “revolution” which once promised to restore morality to Washington but instead sank far deeper into the cesspool of corruption.
“Casino Jack,” a former head of the College Republicans and a “Pioneer”-grade fundraiser for the Bush 2000 campaign, pleaded guilty to three felony counts of conspiracy, mail fraud and tax evasion in D.C. yesterday and is set to appear in Florida today to plead guilty to fraud and conspiracy on separate charges. Abramoff and other defendants also must repay over $25 million to defrauded clients and $1.7 million to the IRS.
But most important for the nation is that Abramoff is now detailing the massive web of corruption he spun inside the Beltway which has already snared a top Bush official, procurement chief David H. Safavian, on charges of lying and obstructing a criminal investigation, and reportedly threatens dozens of other D.C. players.
“When this is all over, this will be bigger than any [government scandal] in the last 50 years, both in the amount of people involved and the breadth to it,” Stan Brand, a former U.S. House counsel who specializes in representing public officials accused of wrongdoing, told Bloomberg News. “It will include high-ranking members of Congress and executive branch officials.”
Some of the Wild West feel of this Beltway corruption was captured in Saturday’s Washington Post expose, “The DeLay-Abramoff Money Trail.” It documents in chilling detail how, among other scams, Abramoff funneled a portion of the millions he had been skimming from Indian casino operators with a cool million from two Russian energy moguls through a shell organization called the U.S. Family Network—and from there into the coffers of politicians in a position to help his clients.
Ironically touting its commitment to “moral fitness” for the nation, the front group with the multi-million dollar budget had a single staff member housed in the backroom of a capital townhouse it owned and rented out to other organizations linked to Abramoff and Tom DeLay--the latter’s staffers called it, ominously, DeLay’s “safe house.” This is apparently why DeLay felt the need to tout the U.S. Family Network in a 1999 fundraising letter as “a powerful nationwide organization dedicated to restoring our government to citizen control.”
It was run by Edwin A. Buckham, DeLay’s former chief of staff, whose lobbying firm, the Alexander Strategy Group, carried Delay’s wife Christine on its payroll. But the moral “fitness” of such cronyism pales in comparison to the scandal of how Abramoff drummed up support for his varied clients under the cover of conservative morality.
For example, in order to block the ambitions of a rival tribe to the Choctaw Indians who had paid Abramoff millions, the U.S. Family Network sent a mailing to Alabama residents warning shrilly that, “The American family is under attack from all sides: crime, drugs, pornography, and one of the least talked about but equally as destructive – gambling. We need your help today to prevent the Poarch Creek Indians from building casinos in Alabama.” The letter conveniently failed to mention, however, that the U.S. Family Network had received at least $250,000 from the gambling proceeds of the Choctaws.
In another scam detailed in the Post story (which could be quickly optioned by Hollywood for a thriller), players in the mafia-dominated Russian energy industry slid a cool $1 million payment through a now-defunct London law firm into the U.S. Family Network’s account – which was, de facto, a slush fund for the Abramoff-DeLay network.
Citing the Rev. Christopher Geeslin, who served as a titular leader of the U.S. Family Network, the Post reported that Buckham told the reverend the payment was intended to secure Delay’s support on legislation forcing the International Monetary Fund to bail out the faltering Russian economy without demanding the country raise taxes on its energy and other profitable industries. Right on cue, DeLay found his way onto Fox News Sunday to take up the Russian’s viewpoint: “They are trying to force Russia to raise taxes at a time when they ought to be cutting taxes in order to get a loan from the IMF,” he said. “That’s just outrageous.” The IMF backed down.
This is just an initial peek into the sordid world being revealed by Abramoff and two of his key cronies now spilling the beans to federal investigators. But in the bigger picture, what we are witnessing is the death throes of the GOP “revolution” which once promised to restore morality to Washington but instead sank far deeper into the cesspool of corruption.
Joaquin Bustelo on Argentina & The Open (Democrat-Imperialist) Society Institute
If anyone had any doubts about whether Argentina's early repayment of IMF loans to rid itself of its IMF shackles is A Good Thing, these can now be put to rest.
The New York Times has an editorial, I mean news article, by Larry Rohter explaining what’s wrong with it.
"As Argentina's Debt Dwindles, President's Power Steadily Grows," the article's headline says, and while making it personal about Kirchner is a curious way to do it, it is at least a confession that, yes, getting rid of the IMF does restore the sovereignty of the Argentine government.
The debt repayment, Rohter said, "is an important symbolic milestone and just one of several recent signs that President Néstor Kirchner appears to be concentrating more power in his own hands and steering his government to the left."
Since winning the mid-term elections in October, Rohter complains, Kirchner "has also moved to establish an alliance with Venezuela's populist leader," replacing a relationship with Washington that "was so close that one president, Carlos Saul Menem, called it 'carnal.'"
Exactly. And guess who got screwed in that "carnal" relationship.
Rohter complains that although Kirchner was elected "less than a quarter of the popular vote" he "now enjoys record levels of public support - 75 percent or more, according to recent polls - that allow him to do largely as he pleases." One could hardly find a better example of the
tendentiousness of hacks like Mr. Rohter than this sentence. Quite evidently what displeases Rohter isn't that Kirchner does as Kirchner pleases, but as pleases the Argentine nation.
And then there's Kirchner's totalitarian abuse of the poor and downtrodden, for example, Shell Oil Company: "an inflationary surge is now threatening, and Mr. Kirchner has responded in statist fashion, trying to impose price controls on certain essential products." Note that: he is trying to impose "statist" "price controls."
This is, of course, a threat to that most cherished of bourgeois freedoms, the freedom to gouge.
"He first used that weapon in March," Rohter reports, "when he urged Argentines to buy 'nothing, not even a can of oil' from Shell after company executives ignored his suggestion that they not raise prices."
So there we have it, the brutal Kirchner persecuting a little, defenseless oil monopoly by suggesting that people violate their sacred obligation to buy, buy and buy and only from imperialist monopolies at whatever price the monopolist tries to impose. But where, pray tell, are the "statist" "controls"?
"Late in November, as a prelude to negotiations to control increases in food prices, he blasted owners of two of the country's biggest supermarket chains, warning them to 'stop extorting us.' Supermarkets then agreed to temporary price freezes that are to expire early in 2006, but economists said they feared that the accords might be a prelude to more systematic controls if inflationary pressures did not abate."
Finally, we've found the "statist" price controls — in the imagination of economists who go unnamed and therefore might well be as imaginary as the controls.
Moreover, having been in the foreign correspondent racket for a while myself, and having spent a lifetime as a journalistic hack, I'm willing to lay even money that those economists –if they exist at all– are to be found at the U.S. embassy, the IMF or some other imperialist connected institution.
Why do I say this?
Because Rohter doesn't say "Argentine economists" and he hides their identity without as much as saying it is at their request. If they were Argentine economists who asked not to be named, Rohter would certainly have said that, just to add to the picture of the creeping totalitarian
nightmare that results from not being in an IMF straitjacket.
But if they were Argentine economists willing to be named –and my experience is that members of the professoriat and similar are quite eager to have their names appear in print or on air–, Rohter would have had every reason to name them in order to further cultivate them as sources and just to add to the overall credibility of his account, especially after the recent scandals at the Times over unnamed sources.
That's what he does with a college prof he quotes a couple of times, "Juan Carlos Torre, a political scientist at Torcuato di Tella University here who has written extensively on Peronism, the nationalist movement formed in the mid-1940's by Juan Domingo Peron with strong working-class support." Rohter lards it on pretty thick.
I don't know about the Argentine economists, but I heard on the TV the other day the head of an Argentine investment firm, who is a commentator on the largely neoliberal CNN en Español nightly financial news show, praising Kirchner and also Lula for breaking with the IMF.
Then, of course, there's the inevitable accusations of attacks on Freedom of the Press.
"In a report on what it called 'indirect censorship,' the Association for Civil Rights warned this month that 'the current government has made control of national media content a priority that it pursues with systematic vigor, subjecting the media to a behind-the-scenes executive
siege.'"
Sounds pretty juicy, but if you were expecting details about midnight visits to journalists and anonymous threatening phone calls and so on, forget it. Rohter offers no details, none at all.
I was so intrigued that I went to look for this outfit's web page. On Googling the Spanish name, the top hit was for the Open Society Justice Initiative, headed by Aryeh Neier and funded by George Soros' Open Society Institute.
When I eventually got to the Argentine site, I found the report Rohter mentions, except that it is attributed to not just the Association for Civil Rights but by it and –yep, you guessed it– the Soros-financed Open Society Justice Initiative.
We should be clear: in describing the report's provenance, Rohter lied. It isn't like Rohter really had a choice on the matter. He could either accurately describe the report as being from co-authoring organizations, or he could falsely attribute it to only one body, which is what he did.
But there is more.
The report was done in both English and Spanish. And both sets of PDF files clearly indicate it is published only by the Open Society Institute, it is copyrighted only by the Open Society Institute, and in the ISBN and catalogue information box on the copyright page of one of
the Spanish version, the author is listed solely as the Open Society Institute. (The English version doesn't have that box.)
On this basis you could, arguably, present it solely as the OSI's report, and leave what seems to be an Argentine branch office out of it, *but not the other way around.* Of course, to know this you'd have to have downloaded the report and gone beyond the 15 or 20 words on the
cover and title page to the following one.
Also the English title is *completely different* from the Spanish one: in Spanish it is called "Subtle censorship," but in English it's "Buying the News." And that's really what most of the report is about.
"We found an entrenched culture of pervasive abuse by provincial government officials who manipulate distribution of advertising for political and personal purposes—in clear violation of international and regional free expression norms. The effects of such abuses are especially insidious when public sector advertising is critical to the financial survival of media outlets, as is common in many Argentine provinces such as Tierra del Fuego, where on average, print and other media outlets receive approximately 75 percent of their advertising income from government agencies."
Thus reminding us that bourgeois freedom of the press is, first, foremost and above else, the right to make money. And that in this case as in all things bourgeois, there is no law higher than the golden rule: those who have the gold make the rules.
Which raises the interesting question of whether "the private sector," and especially the imperialist concerns in Argentina, themselves practice political discrimination in placing advertising in Argentina, as they do everywhere else. Because buried in the report summary is this sentence, "A number of provincial and federal officials seek to justify their abundant allocations of advertising to favored media as legitimate subsidies that promote media pluralism."
The report rejects that out of hand, of course, because from the point of view of multibillionaires like Soros, the job of governments is to follow their dictates, not counter their influence. So there is no hint in the report of any effort to identify or investigate *corporate* and *imperialist* pressure and favoritism. The use of *the nation's* advertising budget to defend the independence of the media from the anti-national economic pressure of the imperialists and their local allies is rejected out of hand, as would be expected in an
imperialist-inspired, financed and authored report.
So now we see WHY there are no details offered by Rohter on his "Indirect censorship," and why the group that appears to be the real author of the report is suppressed, because it's just a lot more sexy to throw around words like "censorship" attributing them to what sounds like a legitimate local human rights group than to say that newspaper publishers accuse government officials of playing favorites when placing ads, according to a report done on behalf of the foundation of gizillionaire speculator George Soros. Never mind adding that government
officials say they’re just trying to counter the undue influence of foreign millionaires on the media.
Moreover, it takes unmitigated gall for the New York Times, which had the information about the illegal Bush wiretaps for a year, in other words, at the time of the last election, and *suppressed* it, to talk about politically motivated "censorship" especially when, as the New
York Times’s own public editor notes, the wiretapping news was finally printed only on the eve of the publication of a book by its own reporter exposing the program, in other words, if the NY Times editors had anything to say about it, the news would have remained not "fit to
print" and came out only to do damage control as its own coverup of Bush's crime was about to be exposed.
Perhaps Kerry would *still* have succeeded in getting Bush re-elected with that news out, but it would not have helped his efforts any.
And then there’s this from Rohter:
"Analysts say the alliance [with Chavez] is more tactical than ideological. 'For someone like Kirchner,' a native of frigid Patagonia 'who doesn't have an extroverted character, Chavez is too tropical,' Mr. Torres [the College Prof] said. Others say Mr. Chavez embodies the kind
of military-nationalist alliance that Mr. Kirchner finds repugnant because of his own experiences here during the military dictatorship in the 1970's, when friends of his were killed and he was briefly detained.
"The election this month of Evo Morales, a Chavez acolyte, as the president of neighboring Bolivia complicates matters even further. Mr. Kirchner has courted and encouraged the new Bolivian leader, but would see his own popularity drop if Mr. Morales's promised transformation were to go awry and degenerate into class, regional or racial conflict that, in the worst case, would send refugees spilling across Argentina's northern border and constrict the flow of natural gas to Argentina."
Translation:
"How can Kirchner be hanging out with that half-breed jungle bunny Chavez and that uppity injun Morales? They ain't even white!"
But when the Argentine President starts acting on the basis that the interests and fate of his nation lie with the Blacks, "mulattos," mestizos and indigenous peoples of our America and not Europe and the United States, it is a good day for all of Latin America.
Joaquín
Madsen on the Impending Iran Attack
In order to understand the insane magnitude of the Zionist-neocon plan to attack Iran, read Wayne Madsen's latest post on his website (January 2, 2006). Madsen ticks off pertinent military and political details and ramifications of the impending attack—and the cataclysmic results. In addition to possibly kicking off a regional war of huge dimension, the demented Zionist-neocon plan for total war in the Middle East will spread massive amounts of radiation far and wide (from the use of tactical nukes by the United States and as a result of bombing Iranian nuclear facilities).
Unfortunately, due to the lackadaisical attitude of a nearly somnolent American public--brainwashed by neocon propaganda, thanks to a complaisant and culpable corporate media--it is far too late to do anything about this long-planned attack on Iran except sit back and watch the fireworks on CNN and Fox and, a few months down the road, pay the political price for neocon crimes.
Not only will another "war" destroy what is left of the American economy--an economy we are told is rosy, a calculated lie (it is a good economy for neolib bankers and death merchants)--but ultimately the American people will be told they have to "sacrifice" their children or themselves because "civilization" will be threatened by enraged and rampaging Muslims who will take none too kindly to having their cities bombed and their children dying from radiation sickness and eventually various cancers.
Of course, in the wake of the Zionist-neocon attack on Iran and the ensuring chaos, bullet stopper conscription will return and a more authoritarian and militarized society will be implemented. But then this is precisely what the Straussian neocons want--total war and a war-like society subservient to the authoritarian rule of the neocon "ruler kings" who have nothing but contempt for a constitutional republic.
Unfortunately, due to the lackadaisical attitude of a nearly somnolent American public--brainwashed by neocon propaganda, thanks to a complaisant and culpable corporate media--it is far too late to do anything about this long-planned attack on Iran except sit back and watch the fireworks on CNN and Fox and, a few months down the road, pay the political price for neocon crimes.
Not only will another "war" destroy what is left of the American economy--an economy we are told is rosy, a calculated lie (it is a good economy for neolib bankers and death merchants)--but ultimately the American people will be told they have to "sacrifice" their children or themselves because "civilization" will be threatened by enraged and rampaging Muslims who will take none too kindly to having their cities bombed and their children dying from radiation sickness and eventually various cancers.
Of course, in the wake of the Zionist-neocon attack on Iran and the ensuring chaos, bullet stopper conscription will return and a more authoritarian and militarized society will be implemented. But then this is precisely what the Straussian neocons want--total war and a war-like society subservient to the authoritarian rule of the neocon "ruler kings" who have nothing but contempt for a constitutional republic.
How Much Did the Bush Administration Know? (About Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and 9/11)
In San Antonio over the weekend, Bush defended the NSA wiretap program,saying, "They attacked us before, they'll attack us again if they can," he said. "And we're going to do everything we can to stop them."
To be polite about it, this is an especially weird statement coming from a President whose administration repeatedly ignored one warning after another of an imminent terrorist attack before 9/11.
But in fact, it is clear the administration did know we could be attacked in any number of ways, including by turning a hijacked commercial airliner into a missile.
There were at least a dozen warnings from foreign intelligence services of terrorist plans to attack, including some citing the possibility of turning a hijacked plane into a suicide missile.
Explicit warnings came from British, German, Italian, Egyptian, and Jordanian intelligence, and even from Vladimir Putin. In July 2001, just two months before 9/11, there were intelligence warnings that the G-8 summit in Genoa might be attacked by "planes stuffed with explosives." Italian officials took these threats seriously enough to close the air space over Genoa and install anti-aircraft guns around the city. And Bush thought enough of them to chose to stay in a ship off the coast instead of in Genoa. Unfortunately, he thought less about the safety of ordinary Americans than he did about his own safety.
Donald Rumsfeld told the 9/11 Commission that defense against attacks on American soil was not the responsibility of the Defense Department, but a "law enforcement issue".
Yet there have been no consequences for anyone in the Bush Administration or the intelligence community. Rumsfeld should have been fired after 9/11. along with top leadership at the CIA and FBI. Instead, the intelligence agencies were rewarded with an increase in funding estimated at 30 percent, and a free hand to torture prisoners and spy on American citizens. And Rumsfeld was given what he wanted all along, which was a war with Iraq. Tenet was awarded the medal of freedom on his retirement
9/11 represented betrayal by two of America's allies, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Through its powerful intelligence service, Pakistan basically created the Taliban in Afghanistan, and its agents stationed around that country cooperated with Al Qaeda. It ignored the Taliban's support of Al Qaeda. There is little doubt that members of Pakistani intelligence knew that 9/11 was going to happen, including the details.But today, Pakistan is our best friend in the region, receiving a significant increase in U.S. aid. So,don't go there.
The Pakistani role in all of this pales in comparison to the involvement of Saudi Arabia. Saudis are clearly the major funding source for Al Qaeda. In fact, the person who helped create Al Qaeda was Prince Turki, who at the time was the head of Saudi intelligence. He participated in the recruitment of Osama Bin Laden, along with other Islamic fundamentalists, to go to Afghanistan in the 1980s to fight against the Soviets. And what were the consequences for Prince Turki? Last year he was welcomed as the new Saudi ambassador to the United States.
Thanks to the courage and quick action of flight attendants aboard Flight 11, American Airlines headquarters knew about the first hijacking no more than 10 minutes after it happened. This was before any of the other three planes had been hijacked. It was nearly 20 minutes before Flight 93 even left the ground. What would have happened if American Airlines had passed this information on, instead of keeping it to themselves.
Pilots might have been warned to secure their cockpit doors. Planes on the ground might not have taken off. Officials in New York City would have known that the first World Trade Tower crash was no accident, and they might have evacuated the other tower. How many lives could have been saved? But what were the consequences for American Airlines negligence? The official who was in charge at American Airlines headquarters that day has since been promoted to president of the airline. Along with the other carriers, American has received huge government bailouts since 9/11. And to this day, they haven't instituted the changes that are necessary to keep their passengers safe.
A few months ago Steve Elson, a member of the FAA's Red Team--undercover former special operations people trained to test air security by breaking through it--traveled to Toronto where with reporters in tow, he picked the locks of all the doors in the Toronto airport.He thus easily gained access to all baggage handling facilities, ramps, walkways, cockpits and seats of idled lanes, food vending trucks, and so on. It would be a simple matter to plant a bomb on an aircraft destined for New York or Washington or LA.
To be polite about it, this is an especially weird statement coming from a President whose administration repeatedly ignored one warning after another of an imminent terrorist attack before 9/11.
But in fact, it is clear the administration did know we could be attacked in any number of ways, including by turning a hijacked commercial airliner into a missile.
There were at least a dozen warnings from foreign intelligence services of terrorist plans to attack, including some citing the possibility of turning a hijacked plane into a suicide missile.
Explicit warnings came from British, German, Italian, Egyptian, and Jordanian intelligence, and even from Vladimir Putin. In July 2001, just two months before 9/11, there were intelligence warnings that the G-8 summit in Genoa might be attacked by "planes stuffed with explosives." Italian officials took these threats seriously enough to close the air space over Genoa and install anti-aircraft guns around the city. And Bush thought enough of them to chose to stay in a ship off the coast instead of in Genoa. Unfortunately, he thought less about the safety of ordinary Americans than he did about his own safety.
Donald Rumsfeld told the 9/11 Commission that defense against attacks on American soil was not the responsibility of the Defense Department, but a "law enforcement issue".
Yet there have been no consequences for anyone in the Bush Administration or the intelligence community. Rumsfeld should have been fired after 9/11. along with top leadership at the CIA and FBI. Instead, the intelligence agencies were rewarded with an increase in funding estimated at 30 percent, and a free hand to torture prisoners and spy on American citizens. And Rumsfeld was given what he wanted all along, which was a war with Iraq. Tenet was awarded the medal of freedom on his retirement
9/11 represented betrayal by two of America's allies, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Through its powerful intelligence service, Pakistan basically created the Taliban in Afghanistan, and its agents stationed around that country cooperated with Al Qaeda. It ignored the Taliban's support of Al Qaeda. There is little doubt that members of Pakistani intelligence knew that 9/11 was going to happen, including the details.But today, Pakistan is our best friend in the region, receiving a significant increase in U.S. aid. So,don't go there.
The Pakistani role in all of this pales in comparison to the involvement of Saudi Arabia. Saudis are clearly the major funding source for Al Qaeda. In fact, the person who helped create Al Qaeda was Prince Turki, who at the time was the head of Saudi intelligence. He participated in the recruitment of Osama Bin Laden, along with other Islamic fundamentalists, to go to Afghanistan in the 1980s to fight against the Soviets. And what were the consequences for Prince Turki? Last year he was welcomed as the new Saudi ambassador to the United States.
Thanks to the courage and quick action of flight attendants aboard Flight 11, American Airlines headquarters knew about the first hijacking no more than 10 minutes after it happened. This was before any of the other three planes had been hijacked. It was nearly 20 minutes before Flight 93 even left the ground. What would have happened if American Airlines had passed this information on, instead of keeping it to themselves.
Pilots might have been warned to secure their cockpit doors. Planes on the ground might not have taken off. Officials in New York City would have known that the first World Trade Tower crash was no accident, and they might have evacuated the other tower. How many lives could have been saved? But what were the consequences for American Airlines negligence? The official who was in charge at American Airlines headquarters that day has since been promoted to president of the airline. Along with the other carriers, American has received huge government bailouts since 9/11. And to this day, they haven't instituted the changes that are necessary to keep their passengers safe.
A few months ago Steve Elson, a member of the FAA's Red Team--undercover former special operations people trained to test air security by breaking through it--traveled to Toronto where with reporters in tow, he picked the locks of all the doors in the Toronto airport.He thus easily gained access to all baggage handling facilities, ramps, walkways, cockpits and seats of idled lanes, food vending trucks, and so on. It would be a simple matter to plant a bomb on an aircraft destined for New York or Washington or LA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)