"The War Is Over! It's Safe To Go Home Now!"

In the years following my escape from the USA I met some other young expats who were in the same boat as I was. Or at least it looked that way until January of 1973, when a wave of excitement swept through the "young expat community", with everyone saying:

"The war is over! It's safe to go home now!"

But I exaggerate. To be honest, not everyone was saying it. I wasn't saying anything.

Thoughts On The War Between The USA And Pakistan

Scrub towers in the distance,
Riders cross the blasted moor
Against the horizon.
Fickle promises of treaty,
Fatal harbingers of war;
Futile orizons…
-- Van Der Graaf Generator: "Arrow"

Signs and omens, suddenly everywhere, tell us war between the USA and Pakistan is imminent.

Chris Floyd has been doing his usual fine job in covering the recent developments and reading the tea leaves. Particularly disappointing is the flow of war propaganda from McClatchy, in the person of Jonathan Landay. McClatchy and Landay were among the few voices of skeptical reason on the national media scene during Bush's pre-Iraq propaganda campaign. But apparently they are now on board with Obama's pre-Pakistan propaganda campaign. Success at last! This must be the change we were hoping for, just as Obama's marketers promised!

As you might expect if you've been paying attention for any of the previous six years, or six decades, all the reasons given for war by US politicians and media types are quite false, and transparently so -- yet no one in the national media can tackle any of them head-on. It's a remarkably dangerous situation, of course: the world's most heavily armed nation is still under a media blackout against certain aspects of reality, just as if Obama's election and inauguration had never happened. Fancy that!

The signs are misleading. War between the US and Pakistan is not imminent. It's ongoing. So far the US has made more than 60 airstrikes against Pakistan using unmanned aircraft, and one commando raid using ground troops and attack helicopters. These attacks have killed more than 700 people, and even the most "optimistic" government reports count only 14 al Qaeda leaders among the dead.

It goes without saying that if any foreign country flew just one bombing mission against the USA, or mounted a single commando raid, it would be regarded as an act of war and treated accordingly. Of course this sort of analysis, putting the shoe on the other foot as it were, is missing from our national political discourse, because in mainstream American political analysis, there is no other shoe; there is no other foot; and anyone who suggests otherwise is promptly banished.

In any case, "imminent" is the wrong word. The war is not imminent. What's imminent is a grave escalation. And the escalation, in my view, is not only imminent but inevitable.

A major, horrific war between the USA and Pakistan is, as I understand it, not only inevitable now; it has been inevitable for many years. I'm quite certain about this. The only question remaining in my mind is: How many is "many"?

If you're with me so far, you may be wondering: How do I know the reasons given for the war are false? And if the reasons are all false, why is the war imminent, much less inevitable? And why has this war been inevitable for many years?

If you'll stay with me for a few more minutes, I'll try to explain. But it's not easy, because we have to untangle a pack of interwoven lies.

Tell me lies
Tell me sweet little lies
-- Fleetwood Mac: "Little Lies"

Depending on which warmongers you listen to, you may be hearing that America must wage war against Pakistan in order to prevent the Taliban from conquering (or at least destabilizing) Pakistan and seizing the country's arsenal of nuclear weapons, and/or to ensure that terrorists can never attack the United States as they did on September 11, 2001, and/or to eliminate the "safe havens" from which "insurgents" are attacking American and NATO forces in Afghanistan, and/or because the Pakistani army hasn't been able to defeat the scourge of terrorism all by itself.

But none of this makes any sense. Pakistan's nuclear weapons are under American control, as they have been since September of 2001. The "loose nukes" scenario, which the war against Pakistan is supposedly designed to prevent, is not only a thoroughly fictional argument, but a thoroughly cynical one as well.

If Pakistan's nukes were not under American control, the Americans wouldn't dream of attacking Pakistan. (If you've been paying attention for any of the previous six years, or six decades, you may recall that the US only attacks countries which have no chance to defend themselves, or to retaliate.)

Furthermore, an all-out attack on Pakistan by the US is more likely to cause fragmentation and destabilization in Pakistan than to bring peace and democracy. (Think of Iraq; think of Afghanistan.) So the idea that an American intervention is necessary to prevent a horrific outcome is equally false, and equally cynical. In fact, a horrific outcome -- fragmentation and destabilization -- is much preferred by the American warmongers, and that's why they're so intent on waging this war. It's really quite simple, once you cut through all the propaganda.

Meanwhile, the only way to ensure that terrorists cannot attack us as they did on 9/11 would be to run a complete and open investigation of the attacks of that day, and who made them possible, and who benefited from them ... and to hold the guilty parties accountable. This has manifestly not been done, and clearly, had it been done, we would be in a much different position today. Significantly, president Obama has no intention of allowing an independent investigation into the so-called "terrorist" attacks, so the official fiction remains in place now and is poised to remain in place forever.

The myths of 9/11, monstrous and murderous though they may be, carve out a space in which all manner of other monstrous and murderous fictions can thrive. And these other lies create an environment in which endless war is inevitable. So it's not easy to answer questions such as: How long has this war been in the cards? Has it in fact been inevitable for "many years"? And what do we mean by "many"? But we do need to try.

"Many" is a word
That only leaves you guessin'
Guessin' 'bout a thing
You really ought to know
-- Led Zeppelin: "Over The Hills And Far Away"

If you take a short-term view, you might say President General Pervez Musharraf signed Pakistan's death warrant in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

It was all quite simple. George Bush declared the attacks of 9/11, which he and his administration had done so much to enable, "an act of war". Then he blamed it on "terrorists of global reach" and he asked the world's leaders, "Are you with us, or are you with the terrorists?"

Pervez Musharraf, no dummy in situations of this type, said "We're with you!"

Choosing any other option, of course, would have ensured Pakistan's immediate destruction.

But by choosing as he did, Musharraf allied himself with a lie, and made Pakistan complicit in the war crimes and crimes against humanity that were about to unfold in Afghanistan.

The American and NATO invasion and occupation of Afghanistan has sparked the inevitable reaction, from people we know as "terrorists" and "insurgents". Our terminology implies, falsely, that the US and NATO troops and the puppet government they installed and support are there legitimately. But this is not true, or even close to the truth.

In fact, the resistance to American subjugation, no matter what we call it, correctly sees Pakistan both as America's number one ally in an effort to destroy Afghanistan, and as America's primary regional source of logistical and other support. So counter-attacking in Pakistan makes at least some strategic and tactical sense, from the Afghan point of view. Most Americans know little or nothing about any of this. So we guess about the things we really ought to know.

Suppose -- here's that other shoe again -- Russia bombed, invaded and occupied the US, in a campaign based in and supplied from Mexico. Would an American resistance spring up? Would the resistance attack Russian installations in Mexico? Would it also attack Mexican institutions that supported the Russians? One could only hope so.

The shoe's on the other foot now
Bet you're wondering how.
And it's just something you're going through...
You'd better keep your eyes open
-- Graham Parker : "Something You're Going Through"

If only the truth were that simple. The reality is much worse than the hypothetical. Since a semi-plausible rationale exists for Afghan attacks against Pakistan, the Americans in Afghanistan, always eager to foment a little terrorism which then requires a reaction, have been using Afghan proxies to attack Pakistan, according to reports from Asia which you will never read in any American newspaper.

It's no coincidence that spectacular bombings and gory suicide attacks keep happening in Pakistan whenever it seems the government is approaching a condition of peaceful co-existence with the so-called militants who live in the mountains near the border with Afghanistan. Or is it?

It's no coincidence that American forces were moving freely, un-hampered by the usual security precautions, in Islamabad's Marriott Hotel just before the hotel was the site of a spectacular bombing attack. Or is it?

It's no coincidence that Baithulla Mehsud, Pakistan's public enemy number one, who has recently been blamed for virtually everything, and who has made outrageous public threats against the American homeland, eludes the Pakistan security forces whenever they get close to him, while communicating using encryption they cannot crack. Or is it?

It doesn't take a genius to connect these dots. Or does it?

And I have met my destiny
In quite a similar way
The history book on the shelf
Is always repeating itself
-- ABBA: "Waterloo"

A longer-term view of Pakistan's current problem would show that its roots were planted almost exactly 30 years ago. In the mid-70s, Afghanistan had shaken off its long-standing feudal monarchy and was beginning to move in progressive directions. A democratic election had empowered a legitimate, representative government, for the first time in Afghanistan's history, and a new social and economic awakening seemed imminent.

Unfortunately for the people of Afghanistan, these developments provided an opportunity certain Americans had been waiting for. They called their plan "Operation Cyclone" and they implemented it in secret. It involved recruiting the baddest bad-guys they could find in the Muslim world, and bringing them to the US for training in terrorist techniques such as murder and sabotage. Once trained, they were sent to Pakistan, were infiltrated into Afghanistan, and began to wreak havoc.

The new government of Afghanistan -- still trying to figure out how to make social democracy work in an Islamic context -- was not at all prepared to deal with terrorists, and asked the Soviet Union for help with security. The Soviets wanted no part of Afghanistan's problem, but neither could they sit back and watch while terrorists destabilized a neighboring country. And the Afghans kept begging for help.

In December of 1979, six months after "Operation Cyclone" went into effect, the Soviets sent troops to assist the Afghan security services -- just what the Americans had hoped for. Immediately, propaganda organs around the world began to trumpet the "fact" that the Soviets had "invaded" Afghanistan. The terrorists who had been sent to attack Afghanistan now turned their attentions to the Soviet troops, and suddenly what had been an internal security problem became the trigger for a major war.

The war raged for almost a decade, killed more than a million people, and destroyed what little infrastructure there was to destroy in Afghanistan; it also did untold damage to the already-crumbling Soviet Union. This was all to the good, according to American policy-makers.

The USSR was at the time America's most powerful "competitor" in the "grand game" of global domination; its fall was a blessing to those American leaders who had been yearning to become the world's only superpower.

And as for Afghanistan, the experiment with social democracy there could not be allowed to stand, much less succeed, for the same reason that similar experiments cannot be allowed to stand anywhere else in the world that American military power can reach: to preserve the myth that capitalism -- unbridled dog-eat-dog militarized capitalism -- is the only path that can possibly lead to prosperity.

There were other factors involved, to be sure. We shouldn't say anything about Afghan poppies and CIA heroin trafficking. We shouldn't say anything about natural resources or pipeline routes either. To do so would put us off the map -- well beyond the limits imposed on "polite" political analysis and far too close to the reality behind the American occupation of Afghanistan today.

Thirty years ago the Soviet Union was the target, Afghanistan was an expendable battlefield, and Pakistan provided the logistical base. Now the situation is slightly different: China is the target, Afghanistan is the logistical base, and as for Pakistan ...

In terms of the "grand chessboard", one might be tempted to say that turnabout is fair play for Pakistan. Those who do the bully's dirty-work always end up as victims themselves. And what's been happening to Pakistan lately, and what's about to happen to Pakistan in the near-term Obama-driven future, could be seen as blowback: retribution for the crimes Pakistan has committed, in complicity with the Americans, against Afghanistan.

But the "grand game" is simply an abstraction, one that "justifies" mass murder on a horrific scale in defense of dimly perceived "national interests". In reality, we're talking about hundreds of millions of people whose lives are about to be destroyed, or in the process of being destroyed, as the "players" continue to see strategic advantage in the destruction and destabilization of foreign countries.

And -- for the most part, and as always -- the victims, and the soon-to-be victims, have done nothing wrong. They've been trying to live their lives and provide for their families under a repressive government which came to power with American support, and which, for most of the past several decades, has been doing America's bidding. Is it a coincidence that the people of Iraq can say the very same thing?

"Operation Cyclone", which filled Afghanistan with terrorists and planted the roots that grew into both the Taliban and al Qaeda, was started during the presidency of Jimmy Carter. The Carter administration's marketing slogan -- "Human Rights" -- gave it perfect cover for a clandestine program of fomenting terrorism in one country in order to destabilize another. And the chief architect behind the plan, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was Carter's National Security Advisor, is now one of Barack Obama's inner circle. That's no coincidence, either.

And this, ultimately, is what makes a major escalation of the war between the US and Pakistan inevitable. The Obama administration embodies none of the change we were hoping for. We are still governed by Bush/Clinton retreads, neo-con chicken hawks, friends and agents of Israel, and Wall Street bankers. None of these people see anything wrong with the American imperial project. The destruction of Pakistan is, and always has been, essential to that project. And the movers and shakers don't care how much pain and suffering they cause.

To prevent a disastrous war between the USA and Pakistan, it would be necessary to dismantle the American imperial system, and this -- as we keep seeing over and over and over -- is not about to happen.

We are all on the run
On our knees
The sundial draws a line upon eternity
Across every number.
-- Van Der Graaf Generator: "Arrow"

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

Horrifying: Obama's Brilliant Speech Of Hope And Unity Scares Me Half To Death

A mere glance at the human condition reveals what a lifetime's study surely confirms: There can be no Peace without Justice. There can be no Justice without Truth. There can be no Unity without Peace. And therefore no one who values Unity above Truth can bring Peace, or Justice.

As you probably know, Senator Barack Obama has recently distanced himself -- somewhat, at least -- from remarks made in twenty years of sermons by his long-time (and now former) pastor, Jeremiah Wright, after Wright's "controversial", "divisive" and "incendiary" statements caused political problems for the Democratic presidential hopeful.

Obama side-stepped the issues very eloquently, in a way only a half-black, half-white candidate could attempt; the speech he gave on Tuesday has been hailed as an important effort at bridging the divide that separates us: one small step for the man himself, and a giant leap -- if not for mankind, then at least for the Obama vision, a vision of one people united.

It's a lofty and noble goal, in general terms. And it has never been expressed in anything but general terms during this campaign, nor can it ever be. The basic reason -- the unmentionable basic reason -- is that Obama's vision is spectacularly unsuited for the task at hand.

It's a lovely vision. It's perfect, perhaps, for some other time or some other place. But for early 21st century America, it's deadly.

Peggy Noonan echoed one of my reactions in the Wall Street Journal when she wrote:

It seemed to me as honest a speech as one in his position could give within the limits imposed by politics.

If this quality -- pushing honesty to the politically acceptable limit -- was its greatness, then it was also its downfall. Consider the following passage from Obama, Tuesday in Philadelphia:

We’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

Wright's statements, which Obama says "denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation" and which therefore were breathlessly reported by the national press, included charges that America nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that America supported state-sponsored terrorism against South Africans and Palestinians, and that America's foreign policy was somehow responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001.

They may offend "black and white alike", but not "rightly"; not by any stretch of the imagination. They certainly offend the ignorant and arrogant alike, but to anyone with a heart and a clue, they come as welcome reminders that somebody still notices and cares about the truth behind all the lies.

Here's Obama again:

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Speaking of problems, the problem with Barack Obama's vision of unity is its comprehensiveness. In other words, he sacrifices verifiable truth in order to preserve a shadowy vision of unity. Or maybe he just ran up against the limits Peggy Noonan hinted at. One way or another, Barack Obama's analysis is in some respects entirely detached from reality.

Reverend Wright's "controversial remarks" contained a great deal of truth -- and as always, truth is the seed of change for the better. By explicitly rejecting the truths Wright has told, Obama has closed off any avenue of potential improvement.

I don't mean to imply that I agree with everything Jeremiah Wright has ever said; I am only aware of a few of his most "incendiary statements". But some of those statements were "incendiary" precisely because they were true! And Barack Obama's description of 21st century America is very different from reality in some important respects.

The question of whether white racism in America is "endemic" is a tricky one, and much depends on what one means by "endemic". In one sense, "endemic" means "confined to a certain region". Clearly white racism is not confined to the United States or any part thereof. So technically Obama's assertion may be true. However, "endemic" also means "natural to or characteristic of a specific people or place" and it is quite a stretch to assert that white racism is not natural to or characteristic of America -- it's an important part of our heritage, as Obama's speech itself showed!

In fact, Obama's speech is seen as remarkable because it concerned race relations and racial tension -- subjects which are seldom if ever mentioned in the national discourse. Does this very fact not also argue that Obama is wrong about the prevalence of racism? However you slice it, facts are facts, and here are a few more of them:

Some white people are less prejudiced than their ancestors were. Others are not. Some black people in modern America have advantages unavailable to their parents and grandparents. Others have no such luck. The racial divide, as Obama pointed out so eloquently, goes way back, back to the founding of the country -- a country founded by rich white men who owned black slaves.

Among other "incendiary remarks", Jeremiah Wright has said that modern America is ruled by rich white men. But what is news about this? They no longer own slaves, but they still run the country. When was it ever otherwise?

We can see. We can count. We know certain things; certain undeniable, easily provable things: There are very few African-Americans in the corridors of power. Those who dare to speak freely and truthfully are quickly removed -- or marginalized, while those who toe the line get to stay a bit longer and make a bit more noise. Thus we have Barbara Lee and Cynthia McKinney on the one hand; Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell and John Conyers on the other.

Blacks are more likely than whites to be charged with a crime. They are more likely to be convicted once charged. They are more likely to be given harsh sentences once convicted. We've reached a ridiculous extreme: one out of every nine young adult black men is in prison. How could this happen in a society where white racism wasn't endemic?

There are plenty of other aspects of American racism, and plenty of other things wrong with America, too. They are all well worth discussing, and in fact the discussion is necessary and long overdue, even if it risks the condemnation of those who see any criticism as "elevat[ing] what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America".

Even more to the point, the conflicts in the Middle East are firmly rooted in the actions of Israel, which is not a stalwart ally of the USA by any means. They are also firmly rooted in the actions of America and Great Britain; we ignore this at our peril. In fact, we ignore the entire history of the region at our peril, and we have done so, as comprehensively as possible, for a very long time.

Furthermore, and even more disastrously, the "perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam" were in large part "created" by "clever" Americans, who thought they were doing the world a favor.

Beginning in 1979, they recruited, armed, funded and motivated a gang of perverse and hateful radical Islamist terrorists, whom they trained in Pakistan under the watchful eye of their favorite Asian cutout, the ISI.

Once trained, the terrorists -- who were called "freedom fighters" -- were inserted into Afghanistan, to wreak havoc on the Russians. The "freedom fighters" were known as "mujahadeen" back then, but their modern offshoots are known as "Taliban" and "al Qaeda".

Barack Obama doesn't want you to know any of this. He can't allow the topic to enter into the national discourse. The reasons are many, but one is enough: The creation of the mujahadeen was the brainchild of Barack Obama's foreign policy advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

What was he thinking? Wikipedia puts it this way:

In 1998, Brzezinski was interviewed by the French newspaper Nouvel Observateur on the topic of Afghanistan. He revealed that CIA support for the mujaheddin had started before the 1979 Soviet invasion and was indeed designed to prompt a Soviet invasion, leading them into a bloody conflict comparable to America's experience in Vietnam. This was referred to as the "Afghan Trap". Brzezinski viewed the end of the Soviet empire as worth the cost of strengthening militant Islamic groups.

The text of the interview is here; this is the most interesting passage:

INT: How did you interpret Soviet behavior in Afghanistan, such as the April revolution, the rise of... I mean, what did you think their long-term plans were, and what did you think should be done about it?

ZB: I told the President, about six months before the Soviets entered Afghanistan, that in my judgment I thought they would be going into Afghanistan. And I decided then, and I recommended to the President, that we shouldn't be passive.

INT: What happened?

ZB: We weren't passive.

INT: But at the time...

(Interruption)

INT: Right, describe your reaction when you heard that your suspicions had been fully justified: an invasion had happened.

See how it works? We weren't passive. But we won't talk about what we did while we weren't being passive -- while we were trying to provoke an invasion!

In any case, on July 3, 1979, U.S. President Carter signed a presidential finding authorizing funding for anticommunist guerrillas in Afghanistan. The Soviets invaded in December.

INT: Reflecting on that whole situation in Afghanistan, do you think it was worth all the suffering that was involved?

ZB: I think the Soviets made a tragic mistake, and therefore it wasn't worth their while to go in. I think it would have been a tragedy if we had allowed them to overrun the Afghans.

In other words, Americans recruited terrorists in a foreign country[*], armed and trained them and then infiltrated them into a second, so they could attack a third. And they never thought anything of it -- as if it were somehow America's divine right to foment all the terrorism it likes in foreign countries. Pakistan and Afghanistan [*] are still suffering daily from the madness unleashed there almost 30 years ago by Brzezinski and his "human rights" president, Jimmy Carter. But now the facts of this "misadventure" -- of which its architects are still quite proud -- don't belong anywhere in our national history, except possibly under the rug.

[* The preceding paragraph was clean and clear-cut but overly simplified in several important ways. Terrorists destined for Afghanistan were recruited from all over the Middle East, not just from Pakistan. Many of them were sent to America for training. And, of course, the list of countries which are still suffering daily from the madness thus unleashed is much longer than I have indicated. For more details on this part of the story, see my "other other blog", Visas For Terrorists.]

If ever America were to move -- hypothetically, of course -- in the direction of positive change, it would necessitate facing up to the reality of the most horrible crimes of our past, and fomenting terrorism surely must rank as one of them.

Depending on whom you believe, the terrorist group founded by Barack Obama's foreign policy advisor may have perpetrated the attacks of 9/11, and launched the so-called "Global War On Terror", which has killed so many innocent people we can't even count them all.

Alternatively, the 9/11 attacks could have been carried out much more easily by more powerful actors with more inside access; certainly the complexity of the operation and the degree of planning involved suggest some sort of inside knowledge, if not actual inside help.

Therefore it is not surprising that "the conventional wisdom" rejects all the alternative hypotheses, especially considering that this so-called wisdom is embodied, if not created, by a national "news media" which is clearly beholden to the most corrupt and militaristic of interests.

But it is remarkable to note the ferocity of the attack on Jeremiah Wright's assertion that 9/11 was in some sense "America's chickens coming home to roost". This, after all, was supposed to be the "official story": they hate us because of what we've done to their countries. It's just like the bombing of the Marines in Lebanon in 1982; American troops are stationed in places where they're unwelcome, and it's time for them to come home.

That's the way the story was supposed to go, apparently. Neglecting for the moment the obvious disparity between the official story and the observed events of the day, the idea that radical Islamic bombers would attack us in such a suicidal way because they hate what we've done to their countries is much more plausible than the idea that they would do so unprovoked by us and for no reason other than "hateful ideologies".

Nonetheless, Obama now blames "the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam" -- which were established on a terrorist footing by his own foreign policy advisor!

The line of "thinking" that led to the creation of Islamic terrorist groups is the very same line that led to the creation of death squads in Vietnam, and in Central America, and elsewhere.

The same line of "thought" has led to the overt invasion or covert subversion of countless foreign countries. The unprovoked and massively destructive assault on innocent, defenseless people in Iraq is only the latest chapter in a long and shameful history.

It's the history of the bipartisan consensus which has ruled America for more than a hundred years. And you are not supposed to know about any of it.

The people in office -- all the elephants, and virtually all the donkeys -- are addicted to a "vision" of "reality" that is in fact a web of lies. Our "news" media are heavily complicit in fabricating and distributing this distorted view of "reality", so it's no surprise that so many Americans share it.

This national, cultural delusion is nothing new; throughout human history we can find cultures entirely devoted to notions that we find quite ridiculous. But our delusion is uniquely dangerous, because our ridiculous notions are wedded to the most fearsome killing machine ever assembled.

In a well-educated democracy, the people would vote the offenders out of office. But we can't do that. We don't have a democracy. And we know virtually nothing.

Our elections can no longer be verified. Our government has ceased to be legitimate. Office-holders no longer need fear the rejection of the people they supposedly represent. And in some cases they flaunt their independence from the voters quite brazenly. It's very simple, and it's blatantly obvious, but it's a truth the American media will never tell.

And this is only one of the issues the media won't talk about.

They won't talk about the crimes committed by America overseas, in the name of liberty or democracy or protecting our interests. They will never admit the truth about our foreign policy. And therefore they cannot acknowledge the reasons why foreign terrorists hate America.

How can we win a war on terror when we don't even understand what motivates it? Strangely enough, that doesn't matter, because "we" have no intention of winning.

The point of the "Global War On Terror" is not to win but to fight. This has been clear for a long time -- since early on the day of September 11, 2001. But it's another one of the truths about America that the media will never tell, and that our national politicians, no matter how brave, will never mention.

Inevitably, many people are still trapped in the web of lies. And here I don't mean just the lies of the Bush administration, or the lies of the past generation of Republicans. These lies may be vile and critical, exceptionally vicious and ubiquitous -- but they are only the most recent examples.

I mean the lies about America -- lies about the role we play in the world, lies about the role we should play in the world, lies about who we support and why, lies about who controls the levers of power and why.

These lies are bought and sold by "leaders" of both major parties, and they've been doing it for more than a century. So if we think we can get beyond them quickly, or do so simply by voting for one party over the other, we are sadly mistaken.

We are in effect doubly trapped: we couldn't change the government by voting even if we wanted to, but most of us are so ill-informed that we don't really want to.

So how do we change that?

First and foremost, we need to focus on the truth and discard the lies. Barack Obama and his eloquent speech are not helping in this regard.

Rather than repudiating his pastor, he should have repudiated his foreign policy advisor.

Rather than distancing himself from a man who spoke the truth, he should have purged his staff of war criminals.

But Barack Obama will never do that, because he is a "serious" candidate for President of the United States. And that means that though he may show some courage by wading into the verboten field of "race in politics", he still has to embrace all the most important official lies, and he still has to reject anyone in his life who threatens the official fiction.

This is not the path to change. It is the road to hell.

But if Barack Obama were any less anxious to follow it, he wouldn't be in the position he's in today -- black or white, male or female.

~~~

The discussion continues: The Sermon Obama Repudiated Was One We All Needed To Hear

Dissident Dissent: Paranoid Lunatics Vs. Conspiracy Theorists, Again!

In the week since the Kennebunkport Warning was signed, most of the discussion has concerned the controversy over who signed or did not sign it.

Let's look at the text again. I've taken the liberty of inserting some space:

Massive evidence has come to our attention which shows that the backers, controllers, and allies of Vice President Dick Cheney are determined to orchestrate and manufacture a new 9/11 terror incident, and/or a new Gulf of Tonkin war provocation over the coming weeks and months.

Such events would be used by the Bush administration as a pretext for launching an aggressive war against Iran, quite possibly with nuclear weapons, and for imposing a regime of martial law here in the United States.

We call on the House of Representatives to proceed immediately to the impeachment of Cheney, as an urgent measure for avoiding a wider and more catastrophic war.

Once impeachment has begun, it will be easier for loyal and patriotic military officers to refuse illegal orders coming from the Cheney faction.

We solemnly warn the people of the world that any terrorist attack with weapons of mass destruction taking place inside the United States or elsewhere in the immediate future must be considered the prima facie responsibility of the Cheney faction.

We urge responsible political leaders everywhere to begin at once to inoculate the public opinion of their countries against such a threatened false flag terror operation.

Much hinges on the first two words. What is meant by "Massive evidence"? Webster Tarpley, author (or co-author) of the Kennebunkport Warning, claimed he would provide evidence and there's a post at 911Blogger in which he is quoted as saying:

I am enclosing my July 21, 2007 summary entitled "Cheney Determined to Strike in US with WMD this Summer," plus a portfolio of selected news stories covering July and August of 2007. (both items attached below)

For whatever reason, there doesn't seem to be an attachment on this post, let alone two. Nor have I been able to find any other version of this message which provides the promised evidence.

Here's a mirror of Tarpley's article, "Cheney Determined to Strike in US with WMD this Summer".

I have not been able to find any "portfolio of selected news stories" as promised by Tarpley but I can provide another link. Here's a mirror of the article he mentioned: "Study: US preparing 'massive' military attack against Iran" (from Raw Story, original here).

In a comment at 911Blogger, Arabesque offers help:

If Tarpley wants more evidence he can use my research...

The page linked by Arabesque (and the links provided in it) contain massive evidence of exactly the sort Tarpley mentioned. (Here is a mirror of that page.)

I will link to Tarpley's "portfolio of selected news articles" if I ever find it. But in the meantime please consider the following excerpts from Arabesque's "The Next 9/11? Predictions, Propaganda, Motive, and After the Attack":

“The whole mystique of intelligence is that you acquire this… very valuable information covertly… if truth be told, about 80%—eight, zero—of any of the information that one needs is available in open source materials.”[1] Ray McGovern, 27-year CIA analyst in the film 9/11: Press for Truth
...

“The July 17 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)… [is] a tour de force of misinformation disguised as fact… It is possibly no coincidence that there has been a significant increase in the anti-Iran rhetoric emanating from both the Bush administration and Congress over the past few weeks, mostly seeking to establish a casus belli by contending that Iran is masterminding lethal attacks against US troops in Iran and NATO forces in Afghanistan.”[13] Philip Giraldi, July 19, 2007
...

Keith Olbermann has detailed many fake terror warnings that have occurred and have been exploited to create fear in the Main Stream Media since 9/11.[14]

“I predict, based primarily on information that is floating in Europe and the Middle East, that an event is imminent and around the corner here in the United States. It could happen as soon as tomorrow, or it could happen in the next few months. Ninety days at the most.”[15] Fox News, July 13, 2005

“I predict, based primarily on information that is floating in Europe and the Middle East, that an event is imminent and around the corner here in the United States. It could happen as soon as tomorrow, or it could happen in the next few months. Ninety days at the most.”[16] Fox News “August 2, 2007”

“In an attempt to reverse plummeting approval ratings, the Bush administration is mounting an unprecedented, sustained campaign of disinformation on the terrorist threat confronting the United States. Even the mainstream media has noted how the White House has attempted falsely to tie al-Qaeda to the war in Iraq, with President Bush increasing the number of references to the group in speeches made during the month of July.”[17] Philip Giraldi, July 31, 2007

“Not a day goes by without suggestions by Bush or top Homeland Security officials that an attack perhaps on the scale of 9/11, or worse, is being prepared. As always, the mass media dutifully report such claims as authoritative, without questioning the lack of evidence beyond the bald assertions of intelligence and other government officials… The terror scare serves three basic political functions: to divert public attention from the disaster in Iraq and the social crisis within the US, to justify a foreign policy based on militarism and war, and to provide a pretext for police state measures at home.”[18] Jerry White, July 27, 2007
...

"The greatest threat now is 'a 9/11' occurring with a group of terrorists armed not with airline tickets and box cutters, but with a nuclear weapon in the middle of one of our own cities… it’s a very real threat."[26] Dick Cheney, April 15, 2007

“A secret U.S. law enforcement report, prepared for the Department of Homeland Security, warns that al Qaeda is planning a terror "spectacular" this summer, according to a senior official with access to the document. ‘This is reminiscent of the warnings and intelligence we were getting in the summer of 2001,’ the official told ABCNews.com.”[27] ABC News, July 1, 2007

“Officials in Germany have publicly warned that [America] could face a major attack this summer, also comparing the situation to the pre-9/11 summer of 2001.”[28] ABC News, July 1, 2007

“I believe we are entering a period this summer of increased risk… Summertime [2007] seems to be appealing to them."[29] Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff, July 11, 2001

"I believe there are cells in the United States, or at least people who aspire to create cells in the United States. To assume that there are not those cells is naive and so we have to take that threat seriously. Am I concerned that this will happen this summer, I have to be concerned that it could happen any day." Air Force Gen. Victor "Gene"[30] Renuart, July 24, 2007

“Al Qaeda terrorists are continuing to plan attacks against the United States and are seeking nuclear and other unconventional arms for the strikes, a senior Pentagon official told Congress yesterday… ‘Al Qaeda has and will continue to attempt visually dramatic mass-casualty attacks here at home, and they will continue to attempt to acquire chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear materials.’”[31] The Washington Times, July 26, 2007

“Capitol Police officials have stepped up the department’s security presence on Capitol Hill in response to intelligence indicating the increased possibility of an al-Qaida terrorist attack on Congress sometime between now and Sept. 11.”[32] Roll Call, August 2, 2007

“Two congressional representatives were meeting with Capitol Hill security officials Friday as workers dealt with an increased security presence related to unspecified al-Qaida threats as the sixth anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks approaches. The fears were stoked Thursday when Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott said it would be a good thing for congress to leave town until September 12.”[33] ABC News, August 3, 2007

“Colorado Republican Tom Tancredo [said] the best way he could think of to deter a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. would be to threaten to retaliate by bombing the holiest Islamic sites of Mecca and Medina. Tancredo told about 30 people at a town hall meeting in Iowa on Tuesday that he believes a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. could be imminent and that the U.S. needs to hurry up and think of a way to stop it.”[34] CBS News, August 3, 2007

“Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey tells NewsMax in an exclusive interview that terrorists could strike the American homeland — possibly with a weapon of mass destruction — this summer or early fall. He also warns that if Iran fails to comply with international efforts to stop its nuclear weapons program, the U.S. will have no other option than to bomb it. ‘I think the threat of a serious attack in the next few months is very real,’ Woolsey said. A terrorist strike with a dirty bomb or with biological weapons was ‘a real possibility.’”[35] NewsMax, August 7, 2007
...

“The Bush administration continues to bypass standard intelligence channels and use what some believe to be propaganda tactics to create a compelling case for war with Iran, US foreign policy experts and former US intelligence officials tell RAW STORY.”[64] Raw Story, August 18, 2006

“The Bush administration has confirmed that it contemplates the possible use tactical bunker buster nuclear bombs to ‘take out’ Iran's non-existent nuclear weapons' facilities. An operational plan to wage aerial attacks on Iran has been in "a state of readiness" since June 2005. Essential military hardware to wage this operation has been deployed.”[65] Michel Chossudovsky, June 2007

“The Democrats certainly don’t contest Bush’s Middle East foreign policy, they embrace it. Just last week the Senate voted 97-0 in favor of moving toward war with Iran… The Democrats don’t really want to end the war despite their veneer of opposition. If they did they would have halted its funding long ago. Likewise, if they really preferred to challenge the Bush falsehoods regarding Iran, they would do so. Instead the Democrats, including their top presidential contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who voted in favor of holding Iran accountable for the killing of US soldiers, seem to want to handle Iran militarily.”[66] Dissident Voice, July 19, 2007
...

“One recalls that it was in August 1964, after the Republicans nominated Barry Goldwater, that the Tonkin Gulf incident occurred… As Congress prepares for its August recess, the probability of U.S. air strikes on Iran rises with each week. A third carrier, the USS Enterprise, and its battle group is joining the Nimitz and Stennis in the largest concentration of U.S. naval power ever off the coast of Iran.”[70] Pat Buchanan, July 16, 2007

“The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned. The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: ‘Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo.’”[71] The Guardian, July 16, 2007.

“It is appalling, if unsurprising, to read the neoconservative cheerleader Oliver Kamm arguing… the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons against Iran… The ultimate irony is that the leading violator of the treaty, the US, and the region's sole nuclear power and non-signatory, Israel, are contemplating nuclear strikes on the pretext of nuclear limitation.”[72] The Guardian, August 7, 2007

“Some hawks within the administration — including Cheney — are said to have favored military strikes [against Iran].”[73] McClatchy Newspapers, August 9, 2007
...

“If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.”[94] The National Security Advisor to former President Carter Zbigniew Brzezinski, February 1, 2007

"I definitely think that is a distinct possibility, that there will be some kind of attack whether it's manufactured or real… I think it's really possible that these people will do that—why would he [Bush] put in that presidential directive if he didn't need to use it—I think it's really really frightening. Does anybody think that [Bush's] recent presidential decision directive wasn't for declaring martial law and suspending elections—that's why they have to be stopped. The culture of corruption doesn't stop at the Republican party and people need to realize that Democrats are not our saviors."[95] Anti-War Activist Cindy Sheehan, July 12, 2007

“The talk of a troop surge and jobs program in Iraq only distracts Americans from the very real possibility of an attack on Iran. Our growing naval presence in the region and our harsh rhetoric toward Iran are unsettling… Rumors are flying about when, not if, Iran will be bombed by either Israel or the U.S.—possibly with nuclear weapons. I am concerned… that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin- type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran.”[96] 2008 Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul, January 11, 2007.

“The government of the United States sees and hears all, with or without legal authority. They can prevent any attack on their people, unless there is some imperial need to deliver a bang so that they can carry on with and justify the brutal war which has been declared against the culture, religion, economy and independence of other peoples.”[97] Fidel Castro, July 15, 2007

“Bush has put in place all the necessary measures for dictatorship in the form of "executive orders" that are triggered whenever Bush declares a national emergency. Recent statements by Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff, former Republican senator Rick Santorum and others suggest that Americans might expect a series of staged, or false flag, "terrorist" events in the near future… Throughout its existence the US government has staged incidents that the government then used in behalf of purposes that it could not otherwise have pursued… False flag operations are a commonplace tool of governments.”[98] Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration Paul Craig Roberts, July 17, 2007

“Today, we see the signs of two parties operating as two pockets of the same pair of political pants, walking all over the constitution and the will of the American people. We don’t have much time left. A staged ‘terrorist’ attack on this nation just prior to the election would create an immediate condition of martial law.”[99] Mike Green, August 2, 2007

“They still need a trigger [to attack Iran] and I would not be surprised if we will see some event in Iraq which implicates the Iranians. They need a pretext.”[100] Raw Story, August 24, 2007

“The War Party is thus seeking an excuse to launch air strikes on Iran, as that would trigger Iranian counterstrikes on our forces. Then they will have their long-sought casus belli for U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities… If there is a rush to war here, it is not on the part of Iran. As Bush is preparing for war on Iran, if he has not already decided on war, where is Congress, which alone has the constitutional power to authorize a war?”[101] Patrick J. Buchanan, August 28, 2007

and so on... The evidence is indeed massive. But it's evidence of what?

The Kennebunkport Warning says:

Massive evidence has come to our attention which shows that the backers, controllers, and allies of Vice President Dick Cheney are determined to orchestrate and manufacture a new 9/11 terror incident, and/or a new Gulf of Tonkin war provocation over the coming weeks and months.

Is this really what the massive evidence shows? I know some people who would be convinced by half as much evidence, or a quarter, or less. And I know others who wouldn't be convinced by ten times this much evidence, or a hundred times, or a thousand.

The split runs along almost the same fault line that divides the dissident "community" into two camps, which I sometimes call "conspiracy theorists" and "paranoid lunatics". Both names are meant in jest but they also contain grains of truth.

A "conspiracy theorist" proper is one who advances a particular theory pertaining to a conspiracy. But that's not how the term is used in most of the time nowadays. Here I adopt (or lampoon) the modern (wingnut) usage of "conspiracy theorist" meaning anyone who doubts the official narrative of 9/11.

A "paranoid lunatic" in this context means a dissident activist who wants to protect his or her "credibility" by avoiding any association with "conspiracy theorists". In my view these people are "lunatics" because they think the mainstream media is going to grant them "credibility" any day now, and "paranoid" because they think their pending "credibility" will be jeopardized if they are caught associating with "conspiracy theorists".

In general, paranoid lunatics think conspiracy theorists are gullible. They are right in some instances but for the most part they are quite wrong. People question the official story of 9/11 not because they're gullible but because they're skeptical. And conspiracy theorists tend to be skeptical of the paranoid lunatics because they don't seem bright enough to see what's in front of their noses -- or honest enough to say what they see.

My point here is not to slam anyone but to try to explain why there is such a gap between paranoid lunatics and conspiracy theorists. According to the liberal philosophy of "live and let live", it shouldn't matter, except that it does. All dissident groups need the strength of numbers and should be working together.

It appears that the Kennebunkport Warning Mystery is the result of a botched attempt to unify the paranoid lunatics and the conspiracy theorists. For whatever reasons (and apparently there were many), it seems to have made matters worse instead of better.

We don't have time for this anymore. We never did.

Jose Padilla Trial: Prosecution's Case Is Thin; Defense Could Blow The GWOT Out Of The Water ... But Don't Count On It

Back to the GWOT for a moment: The case against Jose Padilla has been laid on the table in a Miami courtroom, and Curt Anderson of the AP has some details courtesy of the Seattle Times:

MIAMI — For a defendant whose name is known around the world, Jose Padilla has become almost a bit player in his terrorism support trial.

Prosecutors rested their case Friday after nine weeks, 22 witnesses and dozens of FBI wiretap intercepts played at trial, most of them in Arabic with written translations for jurors. Defense lawyers for Padilla and his two co-defendants begin presenting their case next week.

Much is at stake for the government, which once heralded Padilla's arrest as a success in the war on terror, accused him in an al-Qaida "dirty-bomb" plot, and held him for 3½ years as an enemy combatant.

Padilla's voice was heard on only seven intercepts, a tiny fraction of the 300,000 collected by the FBI during the long investigation.

Padilla was never linked to any specific acts of terrorism or murder and, unlike his co-defendants, he was not accused of using purported code words such as "tourism" for "jihad" or "eggplant" for "rocket-propelled grenade."

The dirty-bomb charge was dropped long ago, of course, and the government has decided not to share the confessions they obtained from Padilla while they held him incommunicado for those three and a half years!

Why? Because everything is in the framing: if this story included the conditions under which Padilla was held, the feds would look even worse than they already do. And if his defense attorneys were given an opportunity to talk about how he was tortured ... well, who are we kidding? Holding somebody in isolation for that long without a hearing or a trial or anything resembling due process is torture in itself.

Nonetheless, the feds could have used confessions obtained under torture, and the fact that it was their choice is a terrible crime in its own right. It's a crime against longstanding and honorable traditions in American justice, and we're all victims, but we don't have the legal standing to do anything about it in a court of law, so please don't get me started on that one!

Former Miami U.S. Attorney Guy Lewis said prosecutors often are forced to present a "watered-down" case when much evidence is classified to protect national security.

More on this in just a second.

"It's a loose-knit conspiracy with very few overt acts," Lewis said. "You didn't catch them committing a terrorist act. Talk only, and talk is cheap."

A very few overt acts, indeed. The main -- if not the only -- evidence the government seems to have against Padilla is a form allegedly obtained by the CIA in Afghanistan that allegedly has Padilla's fingerprints on it.

The key to the case against Padilla, according to attorneys and legal experts, is how much weight jurors give to the five-page "mujahedeen data form" he allegedly filled out in July 2000 to attend an al-Qaida training camp in Afghanistan. Seven of Padilla's fingerprints are on the form, which the CIA recovered in Afghanistan in December 2001.

"The question is whether the defense has a plausible theory for how Padilla's fingerprints got on the form that doesn't implicate him," said Stephen Vladeck, law professor at American University in Washington, D.C.

It seems almost too obvious to point out, but didn't the mujahadeen work for the CIA?

It's been well-documented; Zbigniew Brzezinski was Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor and they decided to give a bit of money, some weapons, and radical ideology to this rag-tag bunch. Then Ronald Reagan got elected and he cranked open the spigot ... Do you remember all this? We talked about it -- and an essay by Juan Cole called "Fisking The War On Terror" -- not long ago.

The CIA, helped by Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISI, funded the so-called Freedom Fighters who fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan. The same group -- with the same backers -- came to be involved in Kosovo, and Chechnya, and elsewhere in the Islamic world.

Professor Cole's essay gets interesting right about here:

In 1998, al-Qaeda and al-Jihad al-Islami, two small terrorist groups established in Afghanistan as a result of the Reagan jihad, declared war on the United States and Israel (the "Zionists and Crusaders"). After attacks by al-Qaeda cells on US embassies in East Africa and on the USS Cole, nineteen of them ultimately used jet planes to attack the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

Whoa! Run that by me again?

In view of what we now know about 9/11, in view of what we always knew about 9/11, in view of what we now know about the uses of false flag operations, it seems quite appropriate to ask:

When did the relationship between al-Q'aeda and the CIA end? Did it ever end?

And is it any coincidence that the purported leaders of al-Q'aeda pop up just when Bush needs them, saying exactly what he needs them to say?

Chris Floyd has been tracking this scent lately: Wednesday he pointed out how

Arrowhead Ripper has been tearing through Diyala's capital city, Baquba, since June 18 [...] The announced goal of the operation is to cleanse the area of "al Qaeda terrorists" [...] But just as in the destruction of Fallujah in late November 2004 [...] the long, noisy PR build-up to the Diyala operation gave the leaders of the "al Qaeda associated groups" plenty of time to melt away into the night, safe and sound to fight another day. Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander of U.S ground forces, admitted cheerfully that 80 percent of what he called upper-level al Qaeda leaders fled before the attacks began [...]

From Fallujah, the curiously untouched "al Qaeda" leaders [...] spread mayhem elsewhere while American forces were attacking hospitals, raining chemical weapons on residential areas, and driving 300,000 people from their homes in the city. In similar fashion, the curiously untouched terrorist leaders from Diyala are obviously raising murderous hell elsewhere -- perhaps in previously peaceful Amerli, where more than 150 people were killed last week in one of the worst terror bombings of the war.

This from Saving Al Qaeda: Collective Punishment and Curious Policy in the "Surge", more fine work from Chris, and I'm really shredding it here, throwing away valuable asides and links and so on, because I need to get to the point soon -- or else you'll click elsewhere, won't you?

It's an excellent piece and you really should read it all ... just not now! Here's Chris again:

A cynic might be forgiven for believing that at this point, the Bush Administration is happy to have an amorphous mass of violent groups out there, just beyond reach, able to keep the country in constant turmoil -- a turmoil which requires the continued presence of American forces to keep it from worsening, as Bush and his Iraqi capos have been stressing this week. It is certainly an open fact that the United States has begun giving weapons to an alarming array of groups in recent months, some of which have been involved in the insurgency, and all of them beyond direct U.S. control.
...

No one pursuing a rational strategy of containing violence in Iraq would adopt such a policy. That leaves us with two basic choices. Either the Bush Administration is pursuing a rational strategy whose true aims are not the ones given publicly for the surge; or else the Bushists have come to believe their own lies about al Qaeda's "central" role in the insurgency.

I tend to favor the former explanation, but as Chris points out, both are plausible. Indeed, "the Bush Administration" consists of quite a number of people, some of whom may believe the lies while the others are pursuing a strategy -- rational or not -- whose true aims are definitely not the ones given publicly. Later Chris writes about the strategy:

They know the only chance they have left of accomplishing their war aims -- the bases, the "Oil Law" -- lies in keeping those cowed, weak, deeply unpopular collaborators in office. Unbridled violence aids this objective, for it "justifies" the continuing presence of the American military -- which is the sole prop for the only kind of regime that would give away the nation's oil and accept foreign bases on its soil.

If this is indeed the "reasoning" behind the otherwise inexplicable policy of embittering the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people while arming violent groups and letting terrorist chieftains roam free, then this too is ultimately a delusion.

Maybe so, maybe not. It seems to be working pretty well so far.

In any case, it seems fair to repeat the questions:

When did the relationship between al-Q'aeda and the CIA end? Did it ever end?

I asked a similar question at Professor Cole's blog not long ago, by the way. But the eminent Middle East expert declined to publish my comment ... which in itself answers the question, does it not?

Onward: Chris Floyd was riding the same horse again on Thursday. In Curiouser and Curiouser: The Comeback Kids of Al Qaeda he wrote:

The situation in Iraq simply mirrors the Administration's approach to al Qaeda throughout the whole "War on Terror" -- a policy that could be very charitably described as "benign neglect" (although more sinister constructions on this policy are also quite plausible).

For example, counterterrorism officials are now telling Congress that al Qaeda has restored its power and capabilities to pre-9/11 levels, AP reports. The curiously elusive group has been thriving in its safe haven in Pakistan – that staunch "War on Terror" ally which, with the blessing of President Bush, has curiously signed "truces" that give al Qaeda and the Taliban carte blanche to live and train on Pakistani soil.

The mention of Pakistan resonates heavily here.

And that's not all. This sudden reassessment of al-Q'aeda's supposedly renewed power has raised serious red flags for this cold writer, although not for Larisa Alexandrovna, who wrote that the assessment mirrors what all credible intelligence reporters have been saying for years.

Elsewhere, Larisa also writes about the sudden surge of terror fears, the bogus reporting coming from ABC lately, and the threats against the American people that have recently been made by such luminaries as Michael Chertoff and Rick Santorum. Here's Larisa again:

Consider this fine piece of propaganda from the Associated Press:

"BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The U.S. military expects al Qaeda in Iraq to strike back with "spectacular attacks" after major U.S.-led offensives that have disrupted its activities, a military spokesman said on Wednesday."

Why does this read like it is a good thing? Or is it just me? And why is the term al Qaeda coupled with the term Iraq? But wait, the last line tells us what we need to know. So the real story is that "A military spokesman said ... blah blah."

Curiously, Chris Floyd hit a similar note in his piece on Thursday, speaking of a different piece of propaganda, also from the AP:

What is even more curious is the mention later in the [AP] story that the Bush Administration sees this assessment as good thing, a political winner:

The findings could bolster the president's hand at a moment when support on Capitol Hill for the war is eroding and the administration is struggling to defend its decision for a military buildup in Iraq.

What does all this have to do with Jose Padilla? Plenty.

If al-Q'aeda is merely a covert instrument of American foreign and domestic policy, then why should Jose Padilla be held for five years, then tried -- just for giving them his fingerprints? He should be hailed as a national hero!

Jose Padilla -- and Adam Gadahn and John Walker Lindh for that matter -- should be feted all over the country. "Civic leaders" like Michael Chertoff and Rick Santorum, who crave another terror attack to snap us all into line, should be wining and dining these guys from sea to shining sea.

That's probably not how the Padilla defense is going to present it, but

The defense says its case will focus on expert witnesses who can provide an alternative view of history, Islamic principles and global politics for the jury.

In other words, the real question is whether the administration has a plausible theory for how Padilla's fingerprints got on the form that doesn't implicate them!

The defense in this case could blow the entire GWOT out of the water!

Not that the media would cover it, or anything...

Truth Is Scarcely Visible As Eland Rips Chertoff Rips Brzezinski

At Robert Parry's Consortium News, guest columnist Ivan Eland plants both feet firmly in the world of fantasy with respect to the events of 9/11, yet still manages to tell a few vital truths when he calls BS on the Bush administration -- specifically Michael Chertoff -- for Exaggerating al-Qaeda's Threat.

Michael Chertoff, President Bush’s secretary of Homeland Security, desperately tried to refute Zbigniew Brzezinski’s cogent charge that the administration has hyped the “war on terror” to promote a “culture of fear,” in a recent Washington Post op-ed.

The op-ed was called "Make No Mistake: This Is War" and it was published on Sunday. Why Ivan Eland declines to link to it is beyond me.

Brzezinski's column was called "Terrorized by 'War on Terror'" and I understand completely why Chertoff declined to link to it.

Eland continues:

In addition to shamefully smearing Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s former National Security Advisor, by associating him with the fringe opinion that the administration plotted the 9/11 terrorist acts, Chertoff also declared, “Al-Qaeda and its ilk have a world vision that is comparable to that of historical totalitarian ideologues but adapted to the 21st–century global network.”

Chertoff's "smearing" of Brzezinski, if indeed that's what it was, is very subtle:

Since Sept. 11, a conspiracy-minded fringe has claimed that American officials plotted the destruction. But when scholars such as Zbigniew Brzezinski accuse our leaders of falsely depicting or hyping a "war on terror" to promote a "culture of fear," it's clear that historical revisionism has gone mainstream.

This false denial from Chertoff may have been required, but that doesn't make it any less ridiculous. It is painfully obvious that our "leaders" have indeed falsely depicted and hyped a "war on terror", and Mr. Chertoff -- one of the guiltiest parties in this regard -- knows as much.

This is the same Michael Chertoff who proclaimed that the alleged "Liquid Bomb" plot -- which was supposedly foiled in the UK last August -- was designed to destroy 10 or 12 airplanes and kill hundreds of thousands of people in the process, as if each airplane could carry tens of thousands of passengers.

But Michael Chertoff "smears" Brzezinski only by referring to him in the same paragraph as what he calls the "conspiracy-minded fringe".

Ivan Eland is much less subtle, levelling a much more blatant smear against those who recognize 9/11 for what it was, and who -- unlike Ivan Eland (and unlike Robert Parry, for that matter) -- have the courage to say so. (Parry, once among the most fearless of journalists, won't talk about election fraud, either. So it goes.)

On the other hand, Eland is right when he says that Chertoff's

rhetoric makes it seem as if al-Qaeda is more dangerous than Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin. When comparisons are made to these villainous titans, we should be suspicious.

After his insane pronouncements last August, we should be suspicious whenever Michael Chertoff says anything!

The same kinds of comparisons have been used before. When Bill Clinton wanted to bomb Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia and Saddam Hussein in Iraq, he compared both leaders to Hitler. In the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, President George W. Bush also used the same comparison.

Yet, the small countries of Serbia and Iraq, as well as the rag-tag group al-Qaeda, have nowhere near the resources of a Nazi Germany and have not tried to completely overrun an important and wealthy continent.

Yes, it's all perfectly true and it's also perfectly obvious. Somewhat less obvious -- but still visible -- is al-Q'aeda's role as an instrument of western intelligence services. But Ivan Eland doesn't seem to know -- or care -- about that.

And he doesn't really have to, because his target -- Chertoff -- can be demolished with virtually no ammunition whatsoever.

Chertoff’s overheated rhetoric doesn’t stop there. He adds yet another implicit comparison -- to communism. He opined, “Today’s extreme Islamist groups such as al-Qaeda do not merely seek political revolution in their own countries. They aspire to dominate all countries. Their goal is a totalitarian, theocratic empire to be achieved by waging perpetual war on soldiers and civilians alike.”

Here the implicit comparison is to the universal communist movement, which tried to spread its revolution around the world.

Maybe in some fifty-year-old dream, the implicit comparison is to the "universal communist movement", a movement which, by the way, never existed but which was nonetheless hyped and falsely depicted for decades.

Eland misses the more obvious comparison: to the modern-day United States, the one force in the world which is -- even as we speak -- waging a self-proclaimed endless, limitless war against the rest of the world.

This endless war doesn't really have much to do with terrorism, and that fact is becoming clearer by the day. It does have a lot to do with oil, though.

Does Ivan Eland mention oil? Does Chertoff mention oil? Does Brzezinski mention oil? Or are we looking at a trilogy of more-or-less total lies?

Here's a hint. Eland continues:

Although Osama bin Laden does try to kill both soldiers and civilians -- and is justifiably deemed a vicious terrorist -- his real objective is not to dominate “all countries” by fomenting an Islamist revolution. If bin Laden had this as a genuine goal, it would be laughable to think that he could get any significant public support in Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, or Hindu countries for a revolution to convert them to draconian Islamic rule.

No kidding. It seems ridiculous when phrased that way.

But on a more pragmatic level, it is equally ridiculous to base anything on what Osama bin Laden says, considering that it's been more than five years since he's said anything! We might as well base our notion of bank security on the pronouncements of Bonnie and Clyde.

In fact, his officially stated goal of recreating a caliphate that would put all of the diverse Islamic countries under one ruler is preposterous enough on its own. Even Chertoff admits that the Islamist extremists’ intent is “grandiose.” Should bin Laden ever create such a caliphate, it would not have the economic or military power of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.

Should bin Laden ever create such a caliphate, it would be one of the most amazing feats ever achieved -- because everybody knows dead men don't create caliphates.

Chertoff himself acknowledges that his own comparison is weak: “To be sure, as Brzezinski observes, the geographic reach of this network does not put them [sic] in the same group as the Nazis or Stalinists when they achieved first-class military power.”

Despite bin Laden’s inflated rhetoric, his real aims -- which are also supported by many mainstream Muslims -- are to remove a non-Muslim military presence from Islamic lands and compel the United States to stop supporting what bin Laden sees as corrupt regimes in the Middle East.

These may have been his real aims when he was alive. On the other hand, he may have been nothing but a figurehead -- a CIA asset through and through. His main job may have been to do and say things which would give the folks like Michael Chertoff ammunition.

Most mainstream Muslims, however, reject bin Laden’s despicable means of targeting civilians to achieve his goals.

Non-Muslim intervention in and occupation of Muslim lands has driven Islamist violence in Chechnya, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan (during both the Soviet and current U.S. occupations), and Lebanon (during Israeli invasions and the U.S. nation-building mission during the Reagan administration). The U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf initially motivated bin Laden to strike U.S. targets, eventually resulting in the horror of 9/11.

Supposedly.

Personally I find it very disturbing that a supposedly dissident journalist would continue to parrot the official government line in the face of the facts that the government has been demonstrably lying about virtually everything, virtually all the time, and that even now -- five and a half years after the attacks -- we still have not seen any credible evidence linking Osama bin Laden to those attacks.

We've seen much more credible evidence to support the contention that al-Q'aeda doesn't even exist!

The amount of incredible evidence we have seen makes the situation much worse.

But Ivan Eland is blissfully unconcerned with any of that; he's more interested in the blowback theory.

The 9/11 attacks were treacherous acts of terrorism, but Chertoff and the Bush administration, the U.S. foreign policy establishment, and the American media act as if they were the beginning of history. Only in religion and quantum physics are there events without cause.

Clearly Chertoff and the Bush administration are interested in deception -- they've virtually made it a religion. So why on Earth should we pay them any more heed?

On the other hand, Ivan Eland is right when he says that

Most Americans are unaware of their government’s history of unnecessary and profligate meddling in the affairs of countries throughout the Middle East. For their own safety and security, Americans cannot continue to ignore that the Islamist venom resulting in 9/11 was rooted in this U.S. interventionist and quasi-imperial foreign policy.

Certainly it would be a step forward to acknowledge the roots if Islamic and Arabic venom. But to claim without a shred of evidence that it resulted in 9/11 is extremely irresponsible.

It's nothing like the sort of reporting readers of Consortium News once enjoyed. But apparently it's all we're ever going to get.

Fortunately, in this case where the target is an outrageous pack of transparent lies, it's almost good enough.

Instead of perpetuating the myth that the United States is at war with “fanatics” who have a reflexive hatred of America, the nation’s homeland security chief could better spend his time examining the real motivator for such terrorism—U.S. foreign policy—and recommending a policy of military restraint in the Middle East to reduce the chances of terrorist attacks at home.

If there is any doubt that this strategy would work, the case of Lebanon during the early 1980s should be examined. After the bombing of the Marine barracks and Ronald Reagan’s withdrawal of U.S. forces from that country, the number of anti–U.S. attacks by the Islamist group Hezbollah plummeted.

This is a great point! Finally. I knew there would be one, eventually. Or at least I suspected as much.

But perhaps creating a “culture of fear,” as Brzezinski put it, is more politically useful to the Bush administration than actually carrying out what should be the first and foremost responsibility of any government—the protection of its people.

Nobody in his right mind could argue this point -- or the previous one, for that matter. Creating a culture of fear has been tremendously useful to the Bush administration. There's no "perhaps" about it.

Without the culture of fear which this administration has created, they would have all been executed for treason a long time ago.

But all Ivan Eland can bring himself to say about this is "perhaps".

What are they afraid of? Why can't Ivan Eland and Bob Parry bring themselves to state the obvious truths of the matter? It's not as if they are in danger of losing a paying gig. They are essentially only blogging already.

And given that context, it's a shameful display, in this frozen writer's opinion. But it is also sufficient.

Despite missing the point -- over and over and over -- Eland still manages to shred Chertoff's position, and this to my mind is the clearest possible evidence that Chertoff is lying.

I mean, if you can be taken apart quite easily, by somebody who hasn't a clue ...

Big News: The GWOT Is Counter-Productive!!

Here's David Morgan of Reuters reporting on a new study written by Veronique de Rugy (photo) and released by the American Heritage Institute, a "conservative" "think tank":

Five-and-a-half years after the September 11 attacks, President George W. Bush's war on terrorism has emerged as a wasteful, misguided exercise that poses its own threat to U.S. national security, experts say.

A growing number of analysts and former U.S. officials say the global war on terrorism has undermined U.S. influence abroad, forced onerous costs in American lives and money in Iraq, and unleashed a huge government spending spree that has often funded projects unrelated to national security.

It has also produced a climate of fear in the United States that helped justify the war in Iraq and the curtailment of civil liberties at home, they said.

If you had said any of these things four years ago you would have been labeled a "tin-foil hatter", or a "terrorist sympathizer", or maybe even a "traitor". But it was all true back then, just as it is all true now. So where have these so-called "experts" been all this time? What else are they saying, and how far are they willing to go?

"The atmosphere of anxiety and uncertainty, and the vagueness of the definition of the enemy, makes the country more fearful and more susceptible to being steered in irrational directions," said Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was U.S. national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter in the 1970s.

Unlike the muted response to attacks by Britain and Spain, experts say the U.S. has overreacted to the September 11 attacks that killed 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania in 2001.

OK, so here's the limit, apparently. We can now say that the GWOT was an "overreaction", but it's too soon to publish anything indicating that the "overreaction" was planned in advance -- in the same way as the attack, and by the same people, too.

It may indeed be too soon for that, but the time is coming.

Congress has spent nearly $271.5 billion on homeland security since September 11, with money often going to projects that have nothing to do with security but that are important to politicians and their constituents, according to a survey by the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

At the same time, the number of potential terrorism targets identified by Congress has exploded from 160 in 2003 to 80,000, allowing such unlikely sites as a Midwestern apple festival and a roadside theme park in Florida to bid for funds.

Meanwhile, the private sector -- lobbyists, interest groups, industries, the media and even universities -- has also used the national security label aggressively to sell its own agendas, experts say.

It's a money pit, and we've seen our civil liberties thrown into it too. But what is it buying us, and where is it leading?

"What's clear is that there is no focus whatsoever in the way we are fighting terrorism," said Veronique de Rugy, author of the AEI study.

Government spokesmen dismissed the criticism, as they always do, with one lie after another.

Department of Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke dismissed the criticism as old and inaccurate, saying the Bush administration had never viewed sites such as small theme parks to be critical national assets deserving of funds. "This has no basis in fact," he said.

Nobody ever claimed the administration considered these sites as deserving of funds. It was pointed out that such sites bid for funds. Thus the government spokesman has destroyed a straw man of his own making, while leaving the original cricitism untouched.

You'll notice that he didn't address any of the main points.

You may also notice that calling the criticism "old" is disingenuous at best. When these concerns were first raised, they smeared the messengers by calling their patriotism into doubt. Now the concerns are raised again, and they are dismissed as being "old".

The fact that they have never been dealt with doesn't seem to matter to Knocke. And if that's not enough, we now present more lies, from Knocke's superior being.

Knocke's boss, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, has also taken issue with the assertion that the U.S. response to September 11 is exaggerated.

"If we begin to heed arguments that somehow our concern about security is overblown ... then I feel we're going to feel consequences in the loss of lives," Chertoff said in a speech outlining his priorities for 2007.

Utter horse manure, friends. We've lost more people trying to conquer Iraq in the past four years than we have lost to terrorist attacks at home in decades.

But terrorism experts say the United States has yet to develop a clear understanding of the threat posed by al Qaeda and other Islamist militant groups, despite the war on terrorism and a total of $500 billion spent on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The "clear understanding" that is needed to fight international terrorism was never part of this administration's grand plan. Every terrorist is affiliated with al-Q'aeda, in their eyes, and so is every political opponent. Unfortunately for them, the world is organized quite differently.

The most pernicious effect of the war on terrorism has been the Iraq war, which has claimed the lives of more than 3,200 U.S. troops and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and damaged U.S. standing in the Muslim world for generation, experts say.

Au contraire; far more pernicious have been the way in which the administration has conflated al-Q'aeda with Iraq (supposedly justifying the war) and the way in which it has used the 9/11 attacks as a pretext to dismember our civil liberties -- despite never being able to show in any way that a reduction in our rights will make us safer.

"Iraq has been vastly worse than anything terrorism's ever done," said Ohio State University political science professor John Mueller, author of a book about the war on terrorism titled, "Overblown."

It's hard to argue with that. But let's put it in a more precise form:

What America has done to Iraq has been vastly worse than anything terrorism's ever done.

Or maybe more accurately:

What America has done to Iraq has been terrorism.

There. That's better.

While both Democrats and Republicans have acknowledged the shortcomings of U.S. policy in Iraq, experts say politicians have not questioned the war on terrorism mainly because it remains a vote-getter.

"Politicians are acting this way because they think they'll lose votes if they don't. Basically, it's a big pork-barrel, so the pork-barrel leaders are there in five seconds," said Mueller, using American vernacular for the politics of self-enrichment.

But maybe this is starting to change. Americans seem more than ever to distrust what their government tells them, except when it comes to terrorism, ironically the area in which the government tells the biggest lies of all. But seeing criticism of the GWOT -- even in a mild form -- coming from "conservatives" is somewhat encouraging.

Have we reached a point where honest forthright criticism of this so-called president and his so-called war are going to be deemed acceptable? Or is such criticism acceptable only when it comes from "conservative" sources, the American Heritage Institute?

Remember, only Richard Nixon could go to China.