| Author | Message | | Alpha | |  | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:10 pm Post subject: Neocon Hijacking of the Bush Regime |
| http://www.juancole.com/2004_10_01_juancole_archive.html#109764826120959385
Juan Cole is Professor of History at the University of Michigan
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Quotes of the Day
Sy Hersh in the UC Berkeley News:
"How could eight or nine neoconservatives come and take charge of this government?" he asked. "They overran the bureaucracy, they overran the Congress, they overran the press, and they overran the military! So you say to yourself, How fragile is this democracy?" MORE.... very long | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2004 6:14 pm Post subject: How to Skew Intelligence |
| http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/articles/2004/07/22/james-bamford-on-msnbc-hardball-about-a-pretext-for-war.php
From: "Jim Bronke" <jvbronke@comcast.net>
Subject: How to Skew Intelligence
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 08:33:53 -0400
The NY Times finally got it right (after the damage has been done). We have to hold Bush accountable. The reality is that any good sleuth knew this before the war. Hence, the inherent shortcomings of our news media. Anyone who would buy in to an argument that Iraq was a real threat to America is missing some serious screws somewhere.
jb
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/23/opinion/23sat1.html?oref=login
October 23, 2004
EDITORIAL
How to Skew Intelligence
t's long been obvious that the allegations about Saddam Hussein's dangerous weapons and alliance with Osama bin Laden were false. But as the election draws closer, the remaining question is to what extent President Bush's team knew the allegations were wrong and used them anyway to persuade Americans to back the invasion of Iraq.
A report issued Thursday by the senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin of Michigan, shows that on the question of an Iraqi-Qaeda axis, Mr. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and others offered an indictment that was essentially fabricated in the office of Douglas Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy.
Mr. Levin's report does not prove that President Bush knew that the Hussein-bin Laden alliance was fiction. But officials like Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz - as well as Mr. Cheney's chief of staff and the deputy national security adviser - knew that Mr. Feith's tailored conclusions were contrary to the views of the entire intelligence community. Mr. Cheney presented them to the public as confirmed truth about Iraq and Al Qaeda.
The Levin report is a primer on how intelligence can be cooked to fit a political agenda. It is another sad reminder of this administration's refusal to hold anyone accountable for the way the public was led into the war with Iraq.
It focuses on the intelligence operation set up by Mr. Rumsfeld, who had been advocating an invasion of Iraq long before Mr. Bush took office and wanted more damning evidence against Baghdad after 9/11 than the Central Intelligence Agency had.
This operation, run by Mr. Feith, tried to persuade the Pentagon's own espionage unit, the Defense Intelligence Agency, to change its conclusion that there was no alliance between Iraq and Al Qaeda. When the Defense Intelligence Agency rebuffed this blatant interference, Mr. Feith's team wrote its own report.
It took long-discredited raw intelligence and resurrected it to create the impression that there was new information supporting Mr. Feith's preordained conclusions. It misrepresented the C.I.A.'s reports and presented fifth-hand reports as authoritative, all to depict Iraq as an ally of Al Qaeda.
Bipartisan reports from the 9/11 commission and the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that the intelligence community had been right and Mr. Feith wrong: there was no operational relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and no link at all between Mr. Hussein and the 9/11 attacks.
For those who were confused before the war, and still are, by all the Bush administration's claims - that the hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi official shortly before 9/11, that a member of Al Qaeda set up a base in Iraq with the help of Mr. Hussein, that Iraq helped Al Qaeda learn to make bombs and provided it with explosives - the evidence is now clear. The Levin report, together with the 9/11 panel's findings and the Senate intelligence report, show that those claims were all cooked up by Mr. Feith's shop, which knew that the C.I.A. and the Defense Intelligence Agency had already shown them to be false.
We don't know exactly how much of that the White House knew because Mr. Feith tried to confuse things. He eliminated points that the C.I.A. disputed when he showed the intelligence agency his report, and he put them back in when he sent it to the White House.
The Bush administration called Mr. Levin's report pre-election partisan sniping. It is far more than that, but voters, unfortunately, won't get final answers.
The Senate Intelligence Committee, which has reported on the C.I.A.'s actions before the war, has delayed a review of the administration's behavior until after the election. We also will not see the C.I.A.'s own report because Mr. Bush's new intelligence chief, Porter Goss, has rebuffed a bipartisan request from Congress to release it.
Voters have to decide whether to hold Mr. Bush accountable for the skewed intelligence cooked up by his administration to justify the war.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company |
Jim Bronke
This email is an _expression of my personal opinion only and does not represent that of any other entity.
If a friend forwarded this to you and should you wish to be on my list just ask. My listers know they can
be removed at any time if they wish.
jvbronke@comcast.net | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 9:47 am Post subject: Bush or Kerry: Any Real Difference in Foreign Policy? |
| http://www.ihr.org/news/041026_weber.shtml
October 26, 2004
Bush or Kerry: Any Real Difference in Foreign Policy?
by Mark Weber
Oct. 26, 2004
President George W. Bush's fervent support for Israel and its hardline premier is well known. He reaffirmed it, for example, in June 2002 in a major speech on the Middle East. In the view of "leading Israeli commentators," the London Times reported, the address was "so pro-Israel that it might have been written by Ariel Sharon."
Indeed, concern for Israel's security was an important factor in Bush's decision to invade Iraq. This is so widely understood by Washington insiders that US Senator Ernest Hollings was moved in May to declare that Iraq was invaded "to secure Israel," and that "everybody" knows it. Referring to the cowardly reluctance of his Congressional colleagues to openly acknowledge this reality, Hollings said that "nobody is willing to stand up and say what is going on." Due to "the pressures we get politically," he added, members of Congress uncritically support Israel and its policies.
In August 2002, some months before the invasion of Iraq, General Wesley Clark, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, said in an interview: "Those who favor this attack now will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel."
In an address to pro-Israel activists at this year's convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Bush said: "The United States is strongly committed, and I am strongly committed, to the security of Israel as a vibrant Jewish state." He also told the gathering: "By defending the freedom and prosperity and security of Israel, you're also serving the cause of America."
Condoleeza Rice, Bush's National Security Advisor, echoed the president's outlook in a May 2003 interview, saying that the "security of Israel is the key to the security of the world."
In light of all this, it's no wonder that millions of people — across the United States and around the world — look with hope to Bush's challenger in this year's presidential election campaign.
But is John Kerry really an alternative? Although he is more polished and articulate than Bush, Kerry's record of emphatic commitment to Jewish and Zionist interests offers little reason to believe that, as president, he would chart a fundamentally different policy in the strife-torn Middle East.
In an advertisement issued by their campaign and published in the Jewish community weekly Forward (Sept. 17), Kerry and his vice-presidential running mate, John Edwards, proclaim that "Israel's cause must be America's cause." They also renew their "commitment to a safe and secure Jewish state of Israel," and pledge to "strengthen our special relationship with Israel." In another ad by their campaign (Forward, Sept. 24), Kerry and Edwards proclaim that they "have always stood firmly with Israel," and that "they stand with American Jews on every issue."
Kerry has named Mel Levine, an ardent Zionist, as his top advisor on Middle East affairs. Levine, a former US Congressman, has been a board member of AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israel lobby organization.
During the presidential campaign debate on Sept. 30, which focused on US foreign policy, neither Bush nor Kerry made a single reference to the Israel-Palestine conflict. To be sure, each did mention Israel, but only to reaffirm his commitment to the Zionist state.
"A free Iraq," said Bush, "will be an ally in the war on terror, and that's essential. A free Iraq will set a powerful example in the part of the world that is desperate for freedom. A free Iraq will help secure Israel. A free Iraq will enforce the hopes and aspirations of the reformers in places like Iran. A free Iraq is essential for the security of this country."
Kerry was no less fervent in his _expression of concern for Israel: "Soldiers know over there [in Iraq] that this isn't being done right yet. I'm going to get it right for those soldiers, because it's important to Israel, it's important to America, it's important to the world, it's important to the fight on terror."
Two decades ago, Admiral Thomas Moorer, one-time Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke with blunt exasperation about the Zionist hold on Washington: "I've never seen a President — I don't care who he is — stand up to them [the Israelis]. It just boggles the mind. They always get what they want... If the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on."
Most Americans are still clueless.
Bush and Kerry, like most US politicians, are so beholden to Jewish-Zionist power, and so committed to Israel and its interests, that regardless of who wins the presidential election on November 2, there will be no real change in US foreign policy, and certainly not in the Middle East.
See also: A Look at the 'Powerful Jewish Lobby' | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 9:36 am Post subject: Terribly Convenient Timing: Osama bin Laden, He's Back |
| From: "Couples Company"
Subject: Terribly Convenient Timing: Osama bin Laden, He's Back
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 21:03:10 -0700
Was today insane or what? You know I'll fine tune this over the next several days as new information becomes available:)
Since this is breaking news, any new info I should include or facts now disproven, let me know. Enjoy
http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/2004/BinLaden.htm
COMMENTARY
Terribly Convenient Timing: Osama bin Laden
He's Back
By Laura Dawn Lewis
On October 29, 2004 Osama bin Laden, via a professionally shot video tape finally stated he ordered 9/11 and further clarified that his assault on the US will not stop until US foreign policy in the Middle East changes. He is quite clear; his beef with the US is what we are doing, not what we are. This position, objecting to US foreign policy remains consistent with interviews he did in 1996 and 1998 with US Media, where he stated the same objections.
This well-timed tape along with its effectiveness at vilifying anyone looking for diplomatic solutions just made the only just and humane resolution impossible insuring this "war" goes on indefinitely
US Policy is defined as: Israel/Palestine, ending the US support of apartheid and ethnic cleansing the United States funds, supports and diplomatically protects from International law; invading countries that did not attack us on false pretense and an end to shielding the governments of Saudi Arabia and other regimes hurting their people. Nearly 70% of the world's people agree that US foreign policy is the problem and cite this as why they are angry with Americans. Some polls have shown this as high as 90%. Americans by comparison remain largely oblivious. Of course bin Laden stated nothing about hating our "Freedom" or that we are "Infidels" which is also consistent with previous interviews. In fact he mocked the Bush Administration's attempt to paint his objectives in such simplistic terms worthy of the kindergarten corner.
Excerpts from the Tape:
"We decided to destroy towers in America," bin Laden said, referring to the World Trade Center.
"God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind," he said.
In his statement, Bin Laden accused President Bush of "misleading" the American people since the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
"Your security is not in the hands of (Democratic candidate John) Kerry or Bush or Al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands," bin Laden said.
"To the U.S. people, my talk is to you about the best way to avoid another disaster," he said.
"I tell you: security is an important element of human life and free people do not give up their security."
"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. It is known that those who hate freedom do not have dignified souls, like those of the 19 blessed ones," he said, referring to the 19 hijackers.
"We fought you because we are free .. and want to regain freedom for our nation. As you undermine our security we undermine yours."
"Despite entering the fourth year after Sept. 11, Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you and therefore the reasons are still there to repeat what happened (with new attacks)," Bin Laden added.
Bin Laden also said that Bush's reaction toward the Sept. 11 attacks was slow which gave the hijackers the time they needed to carry out the attacks.
Al-Jazeera 10/29/2004
View the 18 Minute Broadcast
Unlike the discredited Bin Laden tape of December 2001, there is no reason to suspect this latest tape is not genuine, (though rumors our flying that it is not) Bin Laden's statements are consistent with previous statements on PBS, (The discredited version of 2001 was not) and the person on the tape appears to be him; the quality is good and clear.
We'll concede this is the real thing. The next logical question is, why wait three years and nearly two months to claim responsibility September 11, 2001, four days before the election? That has been one of the main sources of doubt and contention with journalists like myself digging, questioning and increasingly becoming alarmed at the inaccuracies and propaganda whipping Americans into a all-out blood lust fear inspired, blindly patriotic frenzy. This tape furthers this emotional smorgasbord, making it awfully convenient on several levels.
John Kerry made a big deal about the fact that we invaded Afghanistan to "Hunt down Bin Laden" then took our eye off the ball so we could invade what we really wanted, Iraq. Cheney made it clear within 5 hours of the planes hitting on 9/11, Afghanistan was a convenience, scribbling a note insisting they find some way to tie Saddam to 9/11. (The Movie Hijacking Catastrophe goes into this in depth). In fact this administration used bin Laden as long as they needed to and then substituted Saddam changing everyone's focus.
This is the first tape in almost three years. Nothing, no appearances, messages, taunts...nothing for three years and now last week we have an obvious American accented "terrorist" promising worse than 9/11. Today Bin Laden suddenly pops up?
Most disturbing, bin Laden articulates what the peace movement and anti-war movements have said, "It's our foreign policy stupid", which is the problem and why terrorism targeted at US interests exists. There is no way around that. US Foreign Policy is the root cause of terrorism. Bush couldn't have asked for a better tool.
Bush and Kerry adamantly declared they will not "Be intimidated or influenced" by anything bin Laden says, suggests or intimates thus positioning anyone stating the problem is our foreign policy as "terrorist sympathizers" rather than rational human beings who object to breaking international law and discarding the constitution via acts considered war crimes when committed by any one other than the US or Israel. It kills the diplomatic solution and supports the force solution, the Bush Doctrine.
Bin Laden's objections to our foreign policy are legitimate. What we are doing by proxy in Palestine is wrong. Not my opinion, that is according to the Hague Resolutions, Geneva Conventions, Rome Statues, The United Nations, our own constitution and International law. For those using the God excuse, it's also against the teachings of the Gospels, which for Christians IS the final word of God and take precedence over all books of the Old Testament. That is another can of twisted worms that Bush's agenda distorted well.
What we are doing in Iraq is wrong. Again, not my opinion. That statement originates with the Hague Resolutions, the Geneva Conventions, Rome Statues, our own constitution and International law. Terrorism's defeat only occurs upon the removal its causes: Oppression, greed, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, occupation, colonization, conquest and invasion, not the branches or seeds illustrated by the people. Our policies cause terrorism both in Palestine and Iraq, and yes the two are intimately connected. Anything other than addressing the realities on the ground of these two policy nightmares feeds terrorism, creates more of these reasons and more baby bin Ladens. Simply put, unless you get the root, the weeds always grow back. We're dead heading by attacking the results of these policies, the terrorists. We're not pulling weeds out by the roots since we continue to fertilize the situations causing terror to grow in the first place.
Unfortunately, this tape provides fuel for Bush's objectives. Our "I'm never wrong and my actions are God inspired" President Bush and "me too" Kerry backed by warmongers and profiteers can now use any attempt addressing the causes of terrorism as being 'influenced by the terrorists'. This well-timed tape along with its effectiveness at vilifying anyone looking for diplomatic solutions eradicates humane resolutions, opting for the barbaric while effectively segregating those promoting diplomacy thus insuring this "war" goes on indefinitely. Concurrently it creates enough fear to insure the money keeps rolling in and the remaining portions of the PNAC plan, now known as the Bush Doctrine can continue to clear the Middle East of any person not 100% behind Israel or the US.
Fox News led the charge beginning at 5PM. O'Reilly set the pace, claiming Emen is siding with the terrorists and an anti-American sympathizer because he opposes the war? And people believe that. It only took one minute for O'Reilly to spin a 360. Not quite a record, but almost. A rap singer is a terrorist sympathizer because he opposes our invading countries that have not attacked us, killing over 100,000 civilians and basically raping their country? Has reason completely left the American mindset? By minute three Mr. O'Reilly insisted we are in World War III...against terrorism, forgetting that terrorism embodies a dynamic, non descript emotional adjective that sometimes serves as a verb or a noun but cannot be defined. Of course he's never explained how an army can fight an ever-changing idea that is a reaction and a tactic. Meanwhile 75% of the women in this country are terrified, just where the President wants them.
A Plea or a Warning?
The language of this statement caught my eye:
"Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands," bin Laden said.
"To the U.S. people, my talk is to you about the best way to avoid another disaster," he said.
The tape is different in that it is appealing to the American people, What the tape says to me, reading between the lines is:
"Here's your chance America. We don't hate you. We hate what you're doing so we're giving you one last opportunity to change your ways. If you choose to continue killing us, our children, our culture and our faith, you leave us no choice but to fight back. Stop interfering with our ability to live and we'll stop interfering with you. If you don't, you have only yourselves to blame."
I see this as the moral equivalency of a clear conscience from bin Laden's point of view. A way of giving us one last chance to reverse this course. In his mind I'm believe he's saying,
"See I told the American people what they need to do in order to avoid being attacked. I'm not asking them to do anything illegal. I'm just asking them to stop doing what is illegal and return to the principles and values they pretend they espouse. And look, they don't care. They want to kill us. Therefore since they won't stop killing us and messing with our lives, they are not innocent any longer. Not their women. Not their children, none of them. Not innocent in God's eyes and not innocent in mine. They allowed this to happen therefore all are responsible."
Ominous, but I believe realistic.
bottom line
PRIMARILY: My questions show suspicion toward the timing. This administration, and as Kerry is a Senator I consider him part of it, finesses the American people and rarely tells the relevant truth. Cross reference Europe in the 1920's and 1930's and you see the same tactics, logic and agendas at work in the United States today.
Secondly: They've used 9/11 to strip us of our most personal rights and control the American people, basically taking our freedom and convincing us that the loss of freedoms is freedom. They've told us persons against pre-emptive strikes and our consistent violations of international law are unpatriotic, because we want to stop engaging in the policies that create terrorism.
Third: I find it strange that it took three years for bin Laden to claim responsibility for 9/11. Today is the first time; up until this point there was no concrete evidence. Now he's made it clear. Why now? I find it suspicious that he disappeared from consideration until Kerry pounded home the fact we used him to go to war and then changed our direction. He disappeared from the media, now he's back?
Extremely disturbing to me is the convenience of positioning the only sane resolution to ending this war, the addressing and reexamination of our foreign policy, as "intimidation" or caving to terrorists rather than diplomacy. This serves the agenda of those promoting this war by effectively silencing those of us seeking peaceful and humane resolutions inline with our constitution and international law.
Finally the most ominous, I suspect this tape is a gesture, a warning and a last opportunity for peace, which the bullheaded nature of our government now will never approach on the convenience of "being influenced by terrorists". You see with this, even those in the Arab world who may have sympathized with bin Laden's agenda but not his tactics, no longer need to feel guilty. Should another attack come they can say, "He gave the American people the chance to change this and they refused. Anything from this point forward is their own fault. They are all guilty"
The cost of war coming home with the majority of our reservists deployed eight thousand miles away, that is a very frightening thought. But of late nothing surprises me. We can create a win/win here and eliminate terrorism. But to so that we must step out of the fear and actually begin to think. <END>
Copyright © Couples Company, Inc. 1999-2004
All Rights Reserved
http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/2004/BinLaden.htm | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:13 pm Post subject: Osama Votes Bush, Says Fisk |
| Osama Votes Bush, Says Fisk
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 10:05:53 -0500 From: "MER - Mid-East Realities -
MiddleEast.Org" <MERL@MiddleEast.Org>
Osama Votes Bush Says Fisk
... Robert Fisk is the chief Middle East correspondent for the London
Independent and one of the most knowledgeable, insightful, and
courageous western journalists about the Middle East. He was
exclusively
interviewed in 1996 by MERTV for a series of four half-hour programs
which we will soon Internet broadcast. He was interviewed yesterday on
the 'Democracy Now' program about the recent speech by Osama Bin Laden
to the 'people of America', about Yasser Arafat, and about the war in
Iraq.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/01/1513254
AMY GOODMAN: Robert Fisk joins us on the line right now, the chief
Middle East correspondent for The London Independent, author of, Pity
the Nation: The Abduction of Lebanon. Welcome to Democracy Now!,
Robert.
ROBERT FISK: Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: Your reaction to the Bin Laden tape.
ROBERT FISK: Well, it is clearly timed for the election, and indeed it,
looks to me like he's voting for Bush. Although he tells the American
people, it is in their hands, it is not Bush or Kerry. He has always
had
this notion. I remember in 1996, I thought it was outlandish, I didn't
put it in my report of my meeting, he had this idea that the American
people would shrug off the American government, and would -- their
individual states of the union would become individual countries, a bit
like Yugoslavia has now become. I said to him at the time, I don't
think
you seem to realize the American people vote for the government in the
United States, which they don't of course in Saudi Arabia and most
other
states in the Middle East. And he just seemed to let that go. He was
obsessed at the time with Somalia and how the Americans were paper
tigers there. I must say when I read that he was telling the American
people that Bush couldn't protect them, he didn't do very well in
protecting the Afghanistan from the Americans, did he? But no, this is
clearly Osama Bin Laden coming back into the picture. You have to
realize that he is, and this is a fact I can promise you, he keeps up
with television news reports, writing, and so on. So, he knows what is
being said. The idea of thinking that he is out of touch, he might have
been many years ago but not now. He's not a -- an internationally
shrewd
figure. He has never traveled very much although oddly enough, he has
been to Sweden. I did notice that reference to Sweden in the text. He
has actually been there, but he does understand what's going on in the
rest of the world. So, therefore, this was a clear attempt to come in.
My belief is that he would calculate correctly, that a tape in which
there's a further threat against the United States by the people who --
well, he actually says himself, he admits it the idea occurred to me of
the twin towers and the international crimes against humanity of
September 11, 2001. I'm sure he realizes that further threats are more
likely to help Bush than Kerry and what Osama Bin Laden wants now, of
course, is a president to be elected who will further mire the country
into the Middle East swamp, and cause, of course more American
casualties, which Bush will surely do. So, I think that this is
probably
Osama Bin Laden's vote for George W. Bush.
AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Robert Fisk, who interviewed Osama Bin
Laden twice.
ROBERT FISK: Three times, actually.
AMY GOODMAN: Three times? When did you interview him and how does he
compare in how he looks to when you interviewed him?
ROBERT FISK: Well, it's an odd thing to say, and I noticed this before
the American bombardment of Afghanistan. When I used to see him, he was
always dressed very humbly, in a white Jallabia, a cheap cotton gown
and
Keffiyeh headdress like any Palestinian or Gulf Arab might wear. But
more and more now he appears, when he does appear in videos, in sort of
gold-fringed robes. And I wonder if that is not a certain amount of
vanity crept into his personality. After all, he is a fairly well known
guy now. And I wonder if this isn’t ? if I could see something of the
Mahdi there, the person who began to believe he was a personal sort of
interpreter for some higher being. It's interesting that he constantly
wants to be portrayed as did before as being in a cave. Of course, the
prophet Mohammad lived in a cave. And indeed he was on a mountain
outcrop when he first received the message from God. And I wonder what
is actually going on not politically over the United States or attacks,
but I wonder what's going none the Bin Laden mind. That's not the first
time he has had such a smart gown on. He was wearing it like that all
in
2000. But before that he was a much more humble figure, but I suppose
could you say that, before he probably thought he had more to be humble
about.
AMY GOODMAN: And yet interestingly, he did not make any reference to
the
Koran.
ROBERT FISK: Well, I think that the tape was slightly longer than the
one that you have seen. And I believe he does make reference to the
Koran in the full half hour tape. You thought it was 18 minutes. But it
hasn't all been aired. I have spoken to the people who got the original
tape and there are a number of Koranic expressions. That's not quite
right, but it is not your fault that you got it wrong.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to read you to Walter Cronkite's comments. I
don't
know if you heard about them.
ROBERT FISK: Well, I know who Walter Cronkite is but I don't know about
his comments.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, he said this on Larry King. He said, so now the
question is basically right now, how will this affect the election. And
I have a feeling it could tilt the election a bit. In fact, I'm
inclined
to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who
is a very clever man, he probably set up Bin Laden to this thing. The
advantage to the Republican side is to get rid of, as a principle
subject of the campaigns right now, get rid of the whole problem of the
Al-Qaqaa explosive dump.
ROBERT FISK: I don't really think it's worth much comment. I know the
timing and the dates when this tape originally arrived in Islamabad. I
don't think anything could have been -- it wasn’t -- for example it
didn't arrive five weeks ago and was then held up until the right
moment
in the election if that's what Cronkite was suggesting. I don’t think
there is any -- yeah, I think that's a conspiratorial theory. There's a
lot of things in this, which suggest that Bin Laden is oddly enough
actually trying to torture Americans. You see, at the very beginning,
when he says, Bush is still misleading you and misinforming you by not
telling you the truth. The odd thing about that is an awful lot of
people think that Bin Laden is quite correct and accurate in saying
that. He is not correct in much else, but in that he is. He never was
of
course in Beirut in 1982, you know, he keeps going back to the Lebanese
invasion. Although he certainly would have seen pictures. And I saw the
real thing in Beirut, whole apartment blocks crumbling to the ground
with all of the occupants inside, with -- after the Israelis had bombed
the buildings from the air, claiming that “terrorists” were inside,
when
in fact in almost all cases, I went to, they were just civilians
families, babies, children, who of course were flattened like pancakes
underneath this mass of concrete and iron. They looked frankly when I
saw them very much like the dead looked of September 11. So, I'm not
making a dark comparison. That's what Bin Laden is doing. But I
understand what he is talking about when he talks about the destroyed
towers in Lebanon. The odd thing is that there's a slightly wrong
translation from the Arabic. He says that, you know, he never thought
of
an attack on the twin towers in New York. What he actually says in the
Arabic was, I had never thought of doing it until I saw what happened
in
Lebanon. Then the idea occurred to me. In other words, he's saying that
the inspiration came from Israel's invasion rather than him sitting
down
and saying there's a good target. I'm not sure I believe him because
it's quite clear that the targets, which were chosen were to represent
finance and the military. And I -- if indeed Ziad Jarrah’s plane, the
Lebanese hijacker, I would have thought that would have gone for the
legislature and Capitol Hill. Interesting enough, Ziad Jarrah himself
was in the Beirut siege and his family who I met managed to get him
out.
He was a small boy at the time, fascinated by airplanes and flying. He
was just a schoolboy. Actually attending a Christian school. And his
father told me that after he had gotten out of Beirut and he had seen
the air attacks, he refused to play with his sister in the park or go
to
the swings because he said, what had happened in Beirut was too
serious.
Of course, he naturally occurred to me when I heard Bin Laden speaking,
that if he had met Ziad Jarrah, and I rather suspect he had, Jarrah
himself may have given his childhood memories of what happened in
Lebanon to Bin Laden, but that might sound as conspiratorial as Walter
Cronkite. I don’t know.
AMY GOODMAN: Robert Fisk, Middle East correspondent for The
Independent,
we have to break, when we come back I want to ask you about Yasser
Arafat, his health and the significance of his going to France, and his
leadership in Palestine and Israel's struggle. And I want to ask you
about the deadliest weekend we have seen in Iraq over the last six
months for U.S. soldiers. And then the study, 100,000 Iraqis dead.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: Robert Fisk on the line us with, Middle East correspondent
for The Independent. You wrote a piece on Saturday, Robert, the title,
“The Truth is that Yasser Arafat died years ago. He married the
revolution. And in the end, he became a little dictator, falsely
promising democracy.” Your response to the latest news of Yasser Arafat
and his health?
ROBERT FISK: Well, he has been -- he's died so many times, hasn't he?
We
were told originally, he died in one of the air raids in Beirut in
1982,
and he didn't. Then he had a crash in the Libyan desert in his plane
and
he was okay, but the pilot was killed. Then he had a blood clot in the
brain on the way to Baghdad from Amman and Jordanian doctors saved him.
This time, of course, it clearly is serious. Although, I mean in a way,
when you look at it symbolically, this old man like an elderly owl who
has been trapped inside this rubble for three years, still talking
about
going to Jerusalem and leading his people to a new state, and so on,
peace of the brave, and then eventually, he's hauled out on a stretcher
looking like a skeleton and taken off to a foreign country from which
he
may never return alive. It's not the way in which leaders should go,
but
the problem is, you see, all along, he never allowed a new leadership
to
take shape around him. He was a corrupt man. He is a corrupt man. He
won't be doing much corruption for a while now, but all this time, and
this is the great tragedy of the Palestinians, apart from the fact
their
living under occupation, which is a greater tragedy for them, is that
this is a man who didn't allow young and educated Palestinians to take
their place in a new political entity. If you look at the pictures or
look at any of the pictures that you see of Arafat outside the Mukada
building in Ramallah, you look at the pictures of him coming out when
he
was led out of the building and put in the helicopter, all the men
around him are paunchy, 50-60 year olds from the days of fighting the
Israelis in Lebanon in the 80’s. Whenever a bright young spokesman has
popped up on television from the Palestinian side, they are being
slapped out and the old men are being brought back. Like, for example,
the Palestinian representative of the United Nations, who is almost
incomprehensible on television or radio. Especially when the Israelis
put up extremely eloquent and well educated young people to represent
their country. So he's -- you know, I have said many times, even Arafat
as a physical existence, that's not a face that you would see on a
student dorm window along with Che Guevara or even Castro. In a sense,
he represents by his continuity, by his desire to represent the
revolution, to be married to the revolution, as he put it, which is
wife
found out what that meant. It has a consistency and a kind of courage
to
it, but he had everything wrong with the Arabs in the sense that he
turned into just another Arab dictator, which is exactly what I think
the Israelis wanted. They want an obedient dictator to manage the
occupation for them. It was interesting that when the second Intifada
broke out, the Israelis asked the question, can Arafat control his own
people, which of course was dutifully taken up, the Israelis set the
agenda for CNN and the BBC, who said, can care fat control his people,
having forgotten that the principle behind the Oslo agreement was not
that Arafat would control his people but that he would represent them.
And in a sense he does represent them, because in the streets there are
people who say we need control, you see? One of the great sicknesses I
think, the cancers of the Arab world is the desire for people to put a
form of authoritarian regime over the freedoms of the kind of democracy
that we think we live in. I would have to say, however, that if he was
an Iraqi, living in the hell of Iraq at the moment, I might well look
back wishfully on the terrible days of Saddam compared to the
infinitely
more violent and dangerous days today.
AMY GOODMAN: Speaking of which, your latest question, what's happening
in Iraq right now, as well as the capture, the kidnapping of Margaret
Hassan, and the threatened, what will happen to her, the killing of the
U.S. soldiers, and the 100,000 report, which we're going to talk about
in a minute, of casualties in Iraq--Iraqi civilians.
ROBERT FISK: Well, you know, the problem is that although some of us,
when we go to Iraq are still moving around, most of my colleagues, and
I
don't blame them at all, scarcely leave their hotels tells because it's
too dangerous. We still have the two French journalists missing.
Although mostly, I understand they're still alive. We have had
journalists murdered; quite a few of them. So, when you talk like this,
for example, I just listened to your questions. Excuse me. We are
constantly faced by this kind of theatrical facade. Who has Margaret
Hassan? We don't know. I know Margaret very well, but there's no claim
from a particular group. There are no armed men standing in the
background with the Islamic banners. Who took her? Why? We hear eight
marines were killed. On operational duties. What does that mean? Were
they ambushed? Were they in a tank that blew up? Were they in a
helicopter that crashed? What does it mean? We hear 100,000 casualties.
Well, there are two ways of getting a casualty rate, an Iraq casualty
rate in Iraq. One is to go around all of the scholarly notebooks of
doctors and morticians who wrote down five more bodies at 2:17 p.m.
this
afternoon. To go to all of the hospitals, to go the ministry of health
and when we've done that, and of course, the associated press had a
pretty good go at this before most of Iraq went outside of government
control, we came up with a figure that got to around 20,000 or 30,000
Iraqis. The figure of 100,000 has been extrapolated from a series of
interviews in specific locations based upon percentages. In other
words,
if they went to five houses in a street and found that 20 more people
had died of violence in the previous year, then they would extrapolate
out from that increase in violence and what it meant. But the 100,000
is
not a record of actual deaths. It's an extrapolation of percentages put
forward in what is in effect a kind of opinion poll. It may be less
than
100,000. It may be considerably less, but I think when you get to the
point where you are sort of saying, "my god it wasn't 30,000 but
100,000," you are beginning to forget the individual and it's the
individual Iraqi who is suffering every day, every day, and there are
many, many deaths will never be recorded simply because in a small
village out in the desert, they will bury the person quickly and the
authorities essentially have no control there anymore. There's no one
to
take down deaths and no one to notify. In Baghdad you still have to
notify deaths. So you can go down to the Baghdad city mortuary, and I
actually go there and meet the doctors and morticians. I actually stand
there among the corpses and we can count them each day. Now that I can
do. I can tell you, on a certain day 27 people were brought with
gunshot
wounds into this hospital. And I can do all the hospitals in Baghdad.
But I can't travel to Najaf and Samara and Fallujah and count there,
too. So there is and there will be no precise statistic. That of course
is precisely the way the United States and Britain and the American
military and America's appointed Iyad Allawi, so-called interim prime
minister, that's the way they want it.
(7) Soros undone by his greed; Chossudovsky wrong amout Osama
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 14:51:27 -0000 From: "Rowan Berkeley"
<rowan_berkeley@yahoo.co.uk>
1. Soros
George Soros' statements about the iniquity of the Bush Babies would be
more worthy of interest if he had not himself taken the opportunity of
the Balkan Wars to seize control of valuable mineral producing areas:
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/szamuely/soros.htm
2. Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky fails to understand either the limits of covert
action or the psychology of UBL. As regards the first, it is simply
implausible to suggest that the UBL videos should have been produced
directly by CIA and co., just as the film that claimed the moon
landings
were faked in a US desert was implausible. There is fakery in the
covert
ops world, but it isn't this simple. UBL is genuinely offering an
explanation and a last chance to repent to the USA and its allies,
secure in the knowledge that the offer will only make them more
determined to ignore or misunderstand what he says and pursue their
policies with all the more blind fervour. There is no contradiction
here
: it is a Qur'anic concpet, that, when the deniers and defiers of God
are warned of the consequences of their acts, they become more
determined to deny and defy God as a result, yet one must warn them in
any case, it is an obligation of honour.
At the same time, it is undeniable that UBL and Bush reinforce one
another and this does not imply that UBL is a fake. It simply is the
case that each seeks a global confrontation with the other. In this
sense, and in this sense only, UBL and the other Qutbist Guerrilla
leaders are 'objective American assets'.
Let me make one final suggestion : in my view the purpose the the
prisoner abuses committed by the US is not to find guerrillas, but to
create guerrillas, though the immediate abusers may have no conscious
awareness of this fact. The more guerrilla opposition the US meets, the
more of a carte blanche it gains for its own atrocities. This is true
on
the large scale, vis-a-vis- UBL, and on the small scale of Abu Ghraib.
Again, this makes the two sides useful to one another, "objective
allies" if you like - not paid double agents or conscious provocateurs
in the spy-versus-spy sense that Michel seems to be pursuing.
Incidentally, I do wish Michel would honour his obligations to those
like me who have paid a year in advance for the Global Outlook
Magazine,
by the way - he is now claiming he cannot afford to supply a year's
worth of pre-paid issues of it (already subscribed in advance at $C23
p.a.) to anyone who doesn't wish to pay an extra $C95 p.a. - which
means
that he has extracted the first $23 from me, and supplied nothing
whatsoever in return (except conspiracy theories on the web).
http://www.globalresearch.ca/MEMBER.html
(8) American Board of Rabbis condemns France for hosting Arafat,
demands
ban on French products
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 15:11:38 -0000 From: "Rowan Berkeley"
<rowan_berkeley@yahoo.co.uk> To: "Peter Myers" <myers@cyberone.com.au>
In an unprecedented and extraordinary attack on France, the American
Board of Rabbis has demanded a worldwide ban on French products. The
New
York-based association which promotes Jewish unity abroad voted
unanimously to call on Jewish people around the world to boycott
everything French: goods, services, and even the language. The board is
outraged at France's providing hospital treatment for Palestinian
leader
Yasser Araft, who it describes as a 'master terrorist', responsible for
'the murder of thousands of infants, children, women, and men.'
Association President, Rabbi Mordechai Yitzchok Friedman, said
'France’s
harboring of Arafat, is consistent with its tradition of anti-Semitism
and anti-American activities.” The Rabbi said the hosting of Yasser
Arafat was an act of terrorism and was in breach of the U.S.'s Global
Anti-Semitism Bill, under which the U.S. State Department is to monitor
global anti-Semitism and annually rate countries on their treatment of
Jews. Rabbi Friedman continued his extraordinary attack by referring to
the Book of Genesis, Chapter 12, Verse 3, claiming, 'God will curse
those who curse the Jewish People, and so shall the people and country
of France be cursed.” Arafat meantime is recovering in a hospital near
Paris after being flown there from Ramallah via Jordan for emergency
medical treatment. Aides say doctors have ruled out leukaemia and are
testing the ailing 75-year old leader for a possible virus.
http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=1fdfaca99c9e3050
(9) H. G. Wells & the greens
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 11:41:49 -0500 From: aelewis@provide.net To:
myers@cyberone.com.au
> H. G. Wells as a Green ...
> (1) Common slogans - the Greens are still using the slogan One >
World
or None.
No greens that I know use that slogan (and I know a LOT). Some greens
do
have a globalistic orientation, it is true. Most local/in-the-trenches
greens are concerned with local issues. They may give lip-service to
the
"think globally" rhetoric, but it has little purchase in practice.
> (2) Common concern with reducing the human impact, and > especially
the human population.
Almost no Greens of my acquaintance (after YEARS of heavy participation
on their discussion boards) have any interest whatever in reducing the
human population. In fact, when I raise the issue, it is usually
shouted-down. I've almost been kicked off boards for this.
"Common concern with reducing the human impact"? Certainly! What sane
and informed person is not so concerned?
> (3) Common promotion of World Government initiatives like the > World
Court and Kyoto Protocol.
Mixed bag. There is some support for World-Court-like initiatives among
greens, and more support for Kyoto. The support for Kyoto is not rooted
so much in visions of a globalistic world state; it is rooted in an
awareness of the environmental and resource problems that will in our
lifetimes result in catastrophe, if they go unchecked. SOMETHING has to
be done. What is it? (i.e. cut them some slack, for gosh sakes)
> (4) Common promotion of "minority" politics. Today, the Greens > are
the force behind Gay Marriage (which you have declared > yourself in
favour of). More at > http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/szilard.html
Yes, among the lefty greens there is strong support for minorities, gay
rights, etc.
I cannot recall endorsing gay marriage specifically. What I endorse is
MARRIAGE, and I would like the state to stay out of it. (In other
words,
marry as you please; it is none of my business.)
> In short, the Green Left today is the vehicle of the World >
Government movement, which tried to establish "World Unity" > after
both
World Wars.
This is oversimplified but contains a grain of truth.
> Wells was connected with it, right from the start. He was one > of
the
creators of Wilson's 14 Points. And a craftsman of the > attempt to
make
the League of Nations a World Government (with > a World Army, & World
Court) in 1919.
Yes, and most greens, confronted with Wellsian and Wilsonian ideas,
would reject most of them, with exceptions.
Your view is too categorical, too fixed. You fail to see the nuances.
You seem anxious to pigeon-hole the greens, and you are not seeing what
a large, diverse movement it is. I speak, as I think you know, as one
who has been severely critical of the greens, so this is not just a
blind apology for them.
(10) H. G. Wells as a Green
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 15:57:18 EST From: ECONORTH@aol.com
I also disagree somewhat. The U.S. Greens are adamantly opposed to
NAFTA
and WTO and all such corporate-led globalization schemes. That and
their, at least, lip-service to decentralization would make them poor
allies of H. G. Wells.. On the other hand, they take many social
positions that are trotskyist: gay marriage, radical feminism, etc. The
Greens here seem to be confused about what they stand for, and that may
be why they are in decline.
(11) green decentralism does not necessarily contradict a world
government
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:03:49 +0700 From: Brian Salter
<bsalter@gol.com>
to add another note to your commentary, green decentralism does not
necessarily contradict a world government / world order agenda.
consider what david ray griffin has to say from his pro-world
government
viewpoint, in his essay, "Global Government: Objections Considered"
(published in "Towards Genuine Global Governance", ed. harris & yunker,
1999):
"...political and economic decentralization of the type that is desired
can occur only in tandem with a type of centralization... With regard
to
the Daly-Cobb vision of economic decentralization, in which each
community becomes as self-sufficient as possible so that trade is
minimized rather than maximized, this total reversal of the course we
have been on for the past several hundred years, is veritably
inconceivable apart from a global government that would madate and
provide policy guidelines for such a change. The kind of centralization
involved in the form of global government envisaged here is, then, not
the antithesis of the desirable kind of economic and political
decentralization, but its precondition."
i tend to think that griffin is right. in my experience, there are few
radical decentralists who seem to have thought through these sort of
implications.
--
Peter Myers, 21 Blair St, Watson ACT 2602, Australia ph +61 2 62475187
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers Mirror:
http://mailstar.net/index.html
If mail does not arrive, check your Trash folder - it may be filtered
out.
To unsubscribe, reply with "unsubscribe" in the subject line; allow 1
day. | | | | Ilana_Halevy | | Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:48 pm Post subject: |
| | Alpha, if james Bumbford will write on page 564 that your dad is fag, will you believe to it or no? | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
