Category: Iraq

  • Airframers in the Asia Pacific region are transitioning away from building under license to developing their own platforms. The Asia Pacific region is the home to several airframers who cut their teeth in their early years with license manufacture of military platforms. Over the past three decades, there has been dramatic progress in the growth […]

    The post Vaulting Ambition appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • After a five month absence from Gaslit Nation due to a family situation, Sarah has decided to leave the show. You can read her regular writing over at her new Substack. We all wish her well and look forward to her next book. 

    In this continuation of Gaslit Nation’s coverage of the Israel-Hamas war, Andrea shares her own hard learned lessons on how to hold space for a friend grieving over the crisis. This episode also includes a look at the Oslo Accords, an interim agreement that historically opened communication between the Palestine Liberation Organization and Israel’s government, and the years of violence that quickly followed, spiraling towards the growing mythology of Benjamin Netanyahu who built support through strongman rhetoric promising to keep Israelis safe. Insead, he weakened Israel. Netanyahu’s Trumpian playbook blasted opponents and the media as “FAKE NEWS!”, “THE DEEP STATE!”, “TRAITORS!”, and turned Israelis against each other. While being under investigation for corruption, Netanyahu brazenly tried to destroy the independence of the judiciary, leading to the largest protests in the country’s history. Now the majority of Israelis polled blame him for the October 7th Hamas terrorist attack, but the majority also believe he should resign after the war. That would incentivize Netanyahu to keep the war going to cling to power. Netanyahu must be forced to step down now, for the sake of any chance for peace. 

    Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Anne Applebaum, author of Gulag: A History; Red Famine: Stalin’s War on Ukraine; and Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism joins Andrea to discuss the stakes in Ukraine and the threats to democracy here at home and around the world. This interview was recorded the Friday before the historic October 15 elections in Poland, bringing a democratic coalition to power to defeat a right wing Trumpian regime that packed the courts, turned state media into their own propaganda arm, banned abortion, and inflamed scapegoating against LGBTQ+ people and refugees. This episode was supposed to run two weeks ago, but was delayed due to the war. For Applebaum’s analysis on the Israel-Hamas war, read her brilliant piece in The Atlantic on her summer reporting trip to Israel on how Israelis rightfully saw Netanyahu as an existential threat.

    This week’s bonus episode will be inspired by questions submitted at the Democracy Defender level and higher on Patreon. To submit your questions, leave them in the comments or send them in a message. Join the conversation and receive ad free episodes, bonus shows, exclusive invites and other perks by subscribing at Patreon.com/Gaslit. Thank you to everyone who supports the show – we could not make Gaslit Nation without you!

    Sign up here to join our Sister District & Gaslit Nation Halloween Phonebank for Virginia!: https://www.mobilize.us/mobilize/event/585389/

    Show Notes:

    Inside the Oslo accords: a new podcast series marks 30 years since Israel-Palestine secret peace negotiations https://theconversation.com/inside-the-oslo-accords-a-new-podcast-series-marks-30-years-since-israel-palestine-secret-peace-negotiations-212985

    The language being used to describe Palestinians is genocidal https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/16/the-language-being-used-to-describe-palestinians-is-genocidal

    I Negotiated Israel’s Hardest Hostage Deal. Here’s What’s Next in Gaza. “The United States still has a role to play. It should continue to pressure Qatar, which should give an ultimatum that if hostages are not released within, say, 24 hours, all of Hamas’s leaders will be expelled from Qatar, where many are based. I don’t believe that Qatar will agree to that — and certainly not without an Israeli cease-fire — but the American government and others have leverage over Qatar and it should be used. 

    There is still a small chance and a limited window of opportunity before the ground assault begins to attain the release of some of the hostages through this kind of agreement. After the invasion begins, it will depend on Israeli special forces to try to save them. Some will again see their homes; others may not. 

    At the other end of this war, I hope that the trauma and suffering we are all feeling on both sides of the conflict will spur us to figure out how to share this land that belongs to both Israelis and Palestinians. Maybe our collective suffering and pain can be channeled to focusing on how to live together rather than killing each other. 

    That will be a long process and cannot include the leaders on both sides who have brought us to where we are. We need a new generation of leaders with new vision, new hopes, new dreams and the ability to lead. I hope that many of the hostages, together with their families, will soon be able to join the voices calling for change.” https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/21/opinion/israel-hamas-hostage.html

    Hamas Leader Lies when pressed in TV interview: https://twitter.com/arash_tehran/status/1715354932595847322

    Netanyahu’s Attack on Democracy Left Israel Unprepared: The prime minister brought about a situation in which all the options are bad. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/10/israel-democracy-judicial-reform-netanyahu-hamas-attacks/675713/

    Biden’s Israel-Palestine Policy Could Cost Him the Election: The president’s blank-check support of Israel’s war on Gaza is alienating many of the Black and brown voters he needs to win reelection. https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/biden-israel-palestine-policy-election/

    The End of Netanyahu: He sold Israelis a story about their safety. It turned out not to be true. “Israelis have good reason for their disillusionment. Seen in hindsight, the litany of Netanyahu’s failures is long. By his own admission, he purposely propped up Hamas as a counterbalance to the more moderate Palestinian Authority in order to keep the Palestinian public divided and prevent a negotiated two-state solution. In partnership with Washington, Netanyahu facilitated the transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars from Qatar into Gaza in an attempt to buy quiet from Hamas. Intelligence officials now believe that some of this money was used to fund the group’s terrorism. Netanyahu also increased permits for Gazans to work in Israel; some of the permit holders may have provided intelligence used to plan the attacks. In 2011, the prime minister released more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners—including convicted mass murderers—in return for one Israeli soldier held hostage by Hamas. This decision encouraged further kidnapping attempts, culminating in the successful abduction of some 200 Israelis this month. One of the prisoners released in 2011 was Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas in Gaza today.” https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2023/10/benjamin-netanyahu-israel-hamas-attack-failure/675722/?utm_source=threads&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_content=edit-promo

    “According to his opponents, his semi-authoritarian tendencies have relentlessly weakened the checks and balances of Israeli democracy. He has debilitated democracy’s gatekeepers, constantly accusing the “deep state” – the judicial system, the law enforcement agencies, the bureaucracy – of actively subverting him and framing him for crimes he never committed using the “fake news” media that he claims is out to get him. And his demagogic, divisive and often incendiary political language has posed a clear and present danger to Israeli democracy. If American readers find this eerily familiar, they’re right.” https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2023/10/benjamin-netanyahu-israel-hamas-attack-failure/675722/?utm_source=threads&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_content=edit-promo

    ‘Biggest in Israeli History’: Organizers Claim Half a Million Protesters Against Netanyahu’s Constitutional Coup As a record 50,000 Israelis rallied in Haifa, and hundreds of thousands more across Israel, opposition leader Yair Lapid slams the Netanyahu government’s sole focus on ‘crushing Israeli democracy’ https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-03-11/ty-article/.premium/biggest-in-israeli-history-organizers-claim-half-a-million-protesters-in-tenth-week/00000186-d261-dfef-a3ef-d26d9bbc0000

    Inside Biden’s Gaza strategy https://www.axios.com/2023/10/21/israel-hamas-war-inside-bidens-gaza-strategy

    A Brief History of the Netanyahu-Hamas Alliance: For 14 years, Netanyahu’s policy was to keep Hamas in power; the pogrom of October 7, 2023, helps the Israeli prime minister preserve his own rule https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-20/ty-article-live/american-mother-and-daughter-first-hostages-released-by-hamas-arrive-in-israel/0000018b-4b06-d1fd-a59f-ef9ff9ed0000

    Experts say Hamas and Israel are breaking international law, but what does that mean? Since the latest explosion of violence began on October 7, both Israel and Hamas have been accused of breaking international law. As the terms “genocide”, “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity” are used to describe the deadly acts carried out by both sides, FRANCE 24 takes a look at what these terms mean. https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20231021-experts-say-hamas-and-israel-are-breaking-international-law-but-what-does-that-mean

    Human Rights Watch Condemns Israel’s Collective Punishment on Gaza, Urges Biden to Help Restore Aid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25zrL_I_4Cg

    Damning evidence of war crimes as Israeli attacks wipe out entire families in Gaza https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/damning-evidence-of-war-crimes-as-israeli-attacks-wipe-out-entire-families-in-gaza/

    Civilians, civilian infrastructure, and health care facilities must be protected at all times https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/latest/indiscriminate-violence-and-collective-punishment-gaza-must-cease#:~:text=MSF%20calls%20on%20the%20government,factions%20must%20establish%20safe%20spaces.

    Netanyahu Waging Campaign to Blame Israeli Military for Failure to Predict Hamas Attack, Defense Sources Say The Israeli prime minister appointed a new spokesman to liaise with military correspondents, an unusual move, with one source saying they’d heard he was defaming officers https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-22/ty-article/.premium/netanyahu-on-campaign-to-blame-idf-for-failure-to-predict-attack-defense-sources-say/0000018b-5688-d5d2-afef-d6fde37a0000

    US intelligence report alleging Russia election interference shared with 100 countries https://www.axios.com/2023/10/21/israel-hamas-war-inside-bidens-gaza-strategy

    Opening clip: https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1716539683990114683

    Oslo Accords clip: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/inside-the-oslo-accords-part-1-why-norway-was-in/id1550643487?i=1000627628956

    Clip: Hear what Jenna Ellis said in tearful court speech https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2023/10/24/jenna-ellis-cries-court-guilty-plea-nc-vpx.cnn

     

     

     


    This content originally appeared on Gaslit Nation and was authored by Andrea Chalupa.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • On February 12, 2002 at a Pentagon news conference, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was asked by Jim Miklaszewski, the NBC Pentagon correspondent, if he had any evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was supplying them to terrorists.  Rumsfeld delivered a famous non-answer answer and said:

    Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know.

    When he was pressed by Jamie McIntyre, CNN’s Pentagon correspondent, to answer the question about evidence, he continued to talk gobbledygook, saying, “I could have said that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, or vice versa.”

    He never said he had evidence, because he didn’t.

    Rumsfeld, who enjoyed his verbal games, was the quintessential bullshitter and liar for the warfare state.  This encounter took place when Rumsfeld and his coconspirators were promoting lie after lie about the attacks of September 11, 2001 and conflating false stories about an alliance between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden in order to build a case to wage another war against Iraq, in order to supplement the one in Afghanistan and the war on “terror” that they launched post September 11 and the subsequently linked anthrax attacks.

    A year later on February 5, 2003, U. S. Secretary of State Colin Powell went before the U. N. Security Council and in a command performance assured the world that the U.S. had solid evidence that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction,” repeating that phrase seventeen times as he held up a stage prop vial of anthrax to make his point.  He said, “My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources — solid sources. These are not assertions. What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.”  He was lying, but to this very day his defenders falsely claim he was the victim of an “intelligence failure,” a typical deceitful excuse along with “it was a mistake.”  Of course, Iraq did not have “weapons of mass destruction” and the savage war waged on Iraq was not a mistake.

    Scott Ritter, the former Marine U.N. weapons inspector,  made it very clear back then that there was no evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but his expertise was dismissed, just as his current analysis of the war in Ukraine is.  See his recent tweet about Senator Diane Feinstein in this regard:

    Thirteen months after Rumsfeld’s exchange in the news conference, the United States invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003, knowing it had no justification.  It was a war of aggression.  Millions died as a result.  And none of the killers have been prosecuted for their massive war crimes.  The war was not launched on mistaken evidence; it was premeditated and based on lies easy to see.  Very, very easy to see.

    On January 28, 2003, eleven days before Powell performance, I, an independent writer, wrote a newspaper Op Ed, “The War Hoax,” saying:

    The Bush administration has a problem: How to start a war without having a justifiable reason for one.  No doubt they are working hard to solve this urgent problem.  If they can’t find a justification, they may have to create one.  Or perhaps they will find what they have already created. . . . Yet once again, the American people are being played for fools, by the government and the media.  The open secret, the insider’s fact, is that the United States plans to attack Iraq in the near future.  The administration knows this, the media knows it, but the Bush scenario, written many months ago, is to act as if it weren’t so, to act as if a peaceful solution were being seriously considered. . . . Don’t buy it.

    Only one very small regional Massachusetts newspaper, the North Adams Transcript, was willing to publish the piece.

    I mention this because I think it has been very obvious for a very long time that the evidence for United States’ crimes of all sorts has been available to anyone who wished to face the truth.  It does not take great expertise, just an eye for the obvious and the willingness to do a little homework.  Despite this, I have noticed that journalists and writers on the left have continued to admit that they were beguiled by people such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joseph Biden, con men all.  I do not mean writers for the mainstream press, but those considered oppositional.  Many have, for reasons only they can answer, put hope in these obvious charlatans, and some prominent ones have refused to analyze such matters as the JFK assassination, September 11th, or Covid-19, to name a few issues.  Was it because they considered these politicians and matters known unknowns, even when the writing was on the wall?

    Those on the right have rolled with Reagan, the Bushes, and Trump in a similar manner, albeit for different reasons.  It causes me to shake my head in amazement.  When will people learn?  How long does it take to realize that all these people are part of a vast criminal enterprise that has been continuously waging wars and lying while raking in vast spoils for the military-industrial complex.  There is one party in the U.S. – the War Party.

    If you have lived long enough, as have I, you reach a point when you have, through study and the accumulation of evidence, arrived at a long list of known knowns.  So with a backhand slap to Donald Rumsfeld, that long serving servant of the U.S. war machine, I will list a very partial number of my known knowns in chronological order.  Each could be greatly expanded. There is an abundance of easily available evidence for all of them – nothing secret – but one needs to have the will for truth and do one’s homework.  All of these known knowns are the result of U.S. deep state conspiracies and lies, aided and abetted by the lies of mass corporate media.

    My Known Knowns:

    • The U.S. national security state led by the CIA assassinated President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. This is The foundational event for everything that has followed.  It set the tone and sent the message that deep state forces will do anything to wage their wars at home and abroad.  They killed JFK because he was ending the war against Vietnam, the Cold War, and the nuclear arms race.
    • Those same forces assassinated Malcolm X fourteen months later on February 21, 1965 because he too had become a champion of peace, human rights, and racial justice with his budding alliance with Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Such an alliance of these two black leaders posed too great a threat to the racist warfare state.  This conspiracy was carried out by the Nation of Islam, the New York Police Department, and U.S. intelligence agencies.
    • The Indonesian government’s slaughter of more than one million mainly poor rice farmers in 1965-6 was the result of a scheme planned by ex-CIA Director Allen Dulles, whom JFK had fired. It was connected to Dulles’s role in the assassination of JFK, the CIA-engineered coup against Indonesian President Sukarno, his replacement by the dictator Suharto, and his mass slaughter ten years later, starting in December 1975.  The American-installed Indonesian dictator Suharto, after meeting with Henry Kissinger and President Ford and receiving their approval, would slaughter hundreds of thousands East-Timorese with American-supplied weapons in a repeat of the slaughter of more than a million Indonesians in 1965.
    • In June of 1967, Israel, a purported ally of the U.S., attacked and destroyed the Egyptian and Syrian armies, claiming falsely that Egypt was about to attack Israel. This was a lie that was later admitted by former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in a speech he gave in 1982 in Washington, D.C.  Israel annexed the West Bank and Gaza and still occupies the Golan Heights as well.  In June 1967, Israel also attacked and tried to sink the U.S. intelligence gathering ship the U.S. Liberty, killing 34 U.S. sailors and wounding 170 others.  Washington covered up these intentional murders to protect Israel.
    • On April 4, 1968, these same intelligence forces led by the FBI, assassinated Martin Luther King, Jr. in Memphis, Tennessee. He was not shot by James Earl Ray, the officially alleged assassin, but by a hit man who was part of another intricate government conspiracy.  King was killed because of his work for racial and human rights and justice, his opposition to the Vietnam War, and his push for economic justice with the Poor People’s Campaign.
    • Two months later, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, on his way to the presidency, was also assassinated by deep state intelligence forces in another vastly intricate conspiracy. He was not killed by Sirhan Sirhan, who was a hypnotized patsy standing in front of RFK. He was assassinated by a CIA hit man who was standing behind him and shot him from close range.  RFK, also, was assassinated because he was intent on ending the war against Vietnam, bringing racial and economic justice to the country, and pursuing the assassins of his brother John.
    • The escalation of the war against Vietnam by Pres. Lyndon Johnson was based on the Tonkin Gulf lies. Its savage waging by Richard Nixon for eight years was based on endless lies.  These men were war criminals of the highest order.  Nixon’s 1968 election was facilitated by the “October Surprise” when South Vietnam withdrew from peace negotiations to end the war.  This was secretly arranged by Nixon and his intermediaries.
    • The well-known Watergate scandal story, as told by Woodward and Bernstein of The Washington Post, that led to Richard Nixon’s resignation in August 1974, is an entertaining fiction concealing intelligence operations.
    • Another October Surprise was arranged for the 1980 presidential election. It was linked to the subsequent Iran-Contra scandal during the Reagan administration, led by future CIA Director under Reagan, William Casey, and former CIA Director and Vice-President under Reagan, George H. W. Bush.  As in 1968, a secret deal was made to secure the Republican’s election by making a deal with Iran to withhold releasing the American hostages they held until after the election.  They were released minutes after Reagan was sworn in on January 20, 1981.  American presidential elections have been fraught with scandals, as in 2000 when George W. Bush and team stole the election from Democrat Al Gore, and Russia-gate was conjured up by the Democrats in 2016 to try to prevent Trump’s election.
    • The Reagan administration, together with the CIA, armed the so-called “Contras” to wage war against the Sandinista government of Nicaragua that had overthrown the vicious U.S. supported dictator Anastasio Somoza. The Contras were Somoza supporters and part of a long line of terrorists that the U.S. had used throughout Latin America where they supported dictators and death squads to squelch democratic movements. Such state terrorism was of a piece with the September 11, 1973 U.S. engineered coup against the democratic government of President Salvatore Allende in Chile and his replacement with the dictator Augusto Pinochet.
    • The Persian Gulf War waged by George H.W. Bush in 1991 – the first made for TV war – was based on lie upon lie promoted by the administration and their public relations firm. It was a war of aggression celebrated by CNN and other media as a joyous July 4th fireworks display.
    • Then the neoliberal phony William Clinton spent eight years bombing Iraq, dismantling the social safety net, deregulating the banks, attacking and dismantling Yugoslavia, savagely bombing Serbia, etc. In a span of four months in 1999 he bombed four countries: Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, and Yugoslavia.  He maintained the U.S. sanctions placed on Iraq following the Gulf War that resulted in the death of 500,00 Iraqi children.  When his Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked by Lesley Stahl of 60 Minutes if the price was worth it, Albright said, “We think the price is worth it.”
    • The attacks of September 11, 2001, referred to as 9/11 in an act of linguistic mind control in order to create an ongoing sense of national emergency, and the anthrax attacks that followed, were a joint inside operation – a false flag – carried out by elements within the U.S. deep state.  Together with the CIA assassination of JFK, these acts of state terrorism mark a second fundamental turning point in efforts to extinguish any sense of democratic control in the United States.  Thus The Patriot Act, government spying, censorship, and ongoing attacks on individual rights.
    • The George W. Bush-led U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. and its “war on terror” were efforts to terrorize and control the Middle East, Southwest Asia, as well as the people of the U.S. The aforementioned Mr. Rumsfeld, along with his partner in crime Dick Cheney, carried out Bush’s known known war crimes justified by the crimes of Sept 11 as they simultaneously created a vast Homeland Security spying network while eliminating Americans basic freedoms.
    • Barack Obama was one of the most effective imperialist presidents in U.S. history. Although this is factually true, he was able to provide a smiling veneer to his work at institutionalizing the permanent warfare state.  When first entering office, he finished George W. Bush’s unfinished task of bailing out the finance capitalist class of Wall St.  Having hoodwinked liberals of his bona fides, he then spent eight years presiding over extrajudicial murders, drone attacks, the destruction of Libya, a coup in Ukraine bringing neo-Nazis to power, etc.  In 2016 alone he bombed seven countries Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, and Iraq.  He expanded U.S. military bases throughout the world and sent special forces throughout Africa and Latin America.  He supported the new Cold War with sanctions on Russia.  He was a fitting successor to Bush junior.
    • Donald Trump, a New York City reality TV star and real estate tycoon, the surprise winner of the 2016 U.S. presidential election despite the Democratic Party’s false Russia-gate propaganda, attacked Syria from sea and air in the first two years of his presidency, claiming falsely that these strikes were for Syria’s use of chemical weapons at Douma and for producing chemical weapons. In doing so, he warned Russia not to be associated with Syrian President Assad, a “mass murderer of men, women, and children.”  He did not criticize Israel that to the present day continues to bomb Syria, but he recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. He ordered the assassination by drone of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani near Baghdad International Airport while on a visit to meet with Iraq’s prime minister.  As an insider contrary to all portrayals, he presided over Operation Warp Speed Covid vaccination development and deployment, which was a military-pharmaceutical-CIA program, whose key player was Robert Kadlec (former colleague of Donal Rumsfeld with deep ties to spy agencies), Trump’s Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services for Preparedness and Response and an ally of Dr. Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates.  On December 8, 2020 Trump joyously declared: “Before Operation Warp Speed, the typical time-frame for development and approval [for vaccines], as you know, could be infinity. And we were very, very happy that we were able to get things done at a level that nobody has ever seen before. The gold standard vaccine has been done in less than nine months.”  And he announced they he will quickly distribute such a “verifiably safe and effective vaccine” as soon as the FDA approved it because “We are the most exceptional nation in the history of the world. Today, we’re on the verge of another American medical miracle.”  The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine was approves three days later. Moderna’s Covid-19 vaccine received FDA emergency use authorization a week later.
    • This Covid-19 medical miracle was a con-job from the start. The official Covid operation launched in March 11, 2020 with worldwide lockdowns that destroyed economies while enriching the super-rich and devastating regular people, was a propaganda achievement carried out by intelligence and military apparatuses in conjunction with Big Pharma, the WHO, the World Economic Forum, etc. and promulgated by a vast around-the-clock corporate media disinformation campaign.  It was the third fundamental turning point – following the JFK assassination and the attacks of September 11, 2001 and anthrax – in destabilizing the economic, social and political life of all nations while undermining their sovereignty.  It was based on false science in the interests of further establishing a biosecurity state.  The intelligence agency planners who had conducted many germ war game simulations leading up to Covid -19 referred to a future arising out of such “attacks,” as the “New Normal.”  A close study of these  precedents, game-planning, and players makes this evident.  The aim was to militarize medicine and produce a centralized authoritarian state.  Its use of the PCR “test” to detect the virus was a lie from the start.  The Nobel Award winning scientist who developed the test, Kary Mullis, made it clear that “the PCR is a process. It does not tell you that you are sick.”  It is a processto make a whole lot of something out of nothing,” but it can not detect a specific virus.  That it was used to detect all these Covid “cases” is all one needs to know about the fraud.
    • Joseph Biden, who was Obama’s point man for Ukraine while vice-president and the U.S. engineered the 2014 coup d’état in Ukraine, came into office intent on promoting the New Cold War with Russia and refused all Russian efforts to peacefully settle the Ukrainian crisis. He pushed NATO to further provoke Russia by moving farther to the east, surrounding Russia’s borders.  He supported the neo-Nazi Ukrainian elements and its government’s continuous attacks on the Russian speaking Donbass region in eastern Ukraine.  In doing so, he clearly provoked Russian into sending troops into Ukraine on 24 February 2022.  He has fueled this war relentlessly and has pushed the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation.  He supported the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.  He currently presides over an aggressive provocation of China.  And like his predecessor Trump, he promotes the Covid disinformation campaign and the use of “vaccines,” urging people to get their jabs.
    • Throughout all these decades and the matters touched upon here – some of my known knowns – there is another dominant theme that recurs again and again.  It is the support for Israel and its evil apartheid regime’s repeated slaughters and persecution of the Palestinian people after having dispossessed them of their ancestral land. This has been a constant fact throughout all U.S. administrations since the JFK assassination and Israel’s subsequent acquisition of nuclear weapons that Kennedy opposed.  It is been aided and abetted by the rise of the neocon elements within the U.S. government and the 1997 formation of The Project for the New American Century, founded by William Kristol and Donald Kagan, whose signees included Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, et al., and their claim for the need “for a new Pearl Harbor.”  Many of these people, who held dual U.S. and Israeli citizenship, became members of the Bush administration.  Once the attacks of September 11th occurred and a summer of moviegoers watching the new film Pearl Harbor had passed, George W. Bush and the corporate media immediately and repeatedly proclaimed the attacks a new Pearl Harbor.  Once again, the Palestinian’s and Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023 attack on Israel that is widely and falsely reported as unprovoked, as is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, has been referred to as “a Pearl Harbor Moment.”  By today, Monday 9 Oct. 2023, President Biden has already given full U.S. support to Israel as it savagely attacks Gaza and has said that additional assistance for the Israeli Defense Forces is now on its way to Israel with more to follow over the coming days. Rather than acting as an instrument for peace, the U.S. government continues its  support for Israel’s crimes as if it were the same country. The Israel Lobby and the government of Israel has for decades exerted a powerful control over U.S. Middle East policies and much more as well.  The Mossad has often worked closely under the aegis of the CIA together with Britain’s M16 to assassinate opponents and provoke war after war.

    Donald Rumsfeld, as a key long time insider to U.S. deep state operations, was surely aware of my list of known knowns.  He was just one of many such slick talkers involved in demonic U.S. operations that have always been justified, denied, or kept secret by him and his ilk.

    One does not have to be a criminologist to realize these things.  It is easy to imagine that Rumsfeld’s forlorn ghost is wandering since he went to his grave with his false “unknown unknowns” tucked away.

    When he said, “I could have said that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, or vice-versa,” he did say it, of course.  Despite double-talkers like him, evidence of decades of U.S. propaganda is easy to see through if one is compelled by the will-to-truth.

    “Ancestral voices prophesying war; ancestral spirits in the danse macabre or war dance; Valhalla, ghostly warriors who kill each other and are reborn to fight again.  All warfare is ghostly, every army an exercitus feralis (army of ghosts), every soldier a living corpse.”  – Norman O. Brown

    Note:  If you think I too have no evidence, look at this for many of them.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The United States announced plans to send depleted uranium to Ukraine earlier this month. Uranium is very dense, which is useful on the battlefield: Bullets that have elements of depleted uranium can pierce armor, and tanks made of depleted uranium stand up well against enemy fire. Almost all the reporting about the move includes the clarification that adverse health risks of depleted uranium — a…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A key function of state-corporate media is to keep the public pacified, ignorant and ill-equipped to disrupt establishment power.

    Knowledge that sheds light on how the world operates politically and economically is kept to a minimum by the ‘mainstream’ media. George Orwell’s famous ‘memory hole’ from ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ signifies the phenomenon brilliantly. Winston Smith’s work for the Ministry of Truth requires that he destroys documents that contradict state propaganda:

    When one knew that any document was due for destruction, or even when one saw a scrap of waste paper lying about, it was an automatic action to lift the flap of the nearest memory hole and drop it in, whereupon it would be whirled away on a current of warm air to the enormous furnaces which were hidden somewhere in the recesses of the building.

    — Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four, 1949, Penguin edition, 1982, p. 34

    The interests of power, hinging on the domination of an ignorant population, are robustly maintained:

    In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct, nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary. In no case would it have been possible, once the deed was done, to prove that any falsification had taken place.

    — Ibid., p. 36

    As the Party slogan puts it:

    Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.

    — Ibid., p. 31

    In today’s fictional ‘democracies’, the workings of propaganda are more subtle. Notably, there is a yawning chasm between the rhetoric of leaders’ professed concern for human rights, peace and democracy, and the realpolitik of empire, exploitation and control.

    As Declassified UK observed earlier this year, the UK has planned or executed over 40 attempts to remove foreign governments in 27 countries since the end of the Second World War. These have involved the intelligence agencies, covert and overt military interventions and assassinations. The British-led coup in Iran 70 years ago is perhaps the best-known example; but it was no anomaly.

    If we broaden the scope to British military interventions around the world since 1945, there are as many as 83 examples. These range from brutal colonial wars and covert operations to efforts to prop up favoured governments or to deter civil unrest, including British Guiana (now Guyana) in 1953, Egypt in the 1950s, Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011 (more on this below).

    The criminal history of the US in terms of overthrowing foreign governments, or attempting to do so, was thoroughly documented by William Blum, author of Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions since World War II and Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower.

    These multiple invasions, coups and wars are routinely sold to the public as ‘humanitarian interventions’ by Western leaders and their propaganda allies of the ‘mainstream’ media.

    A Feted War Criminal

    Tony Blair, the arch British war criminal, is largely treated by the UK political and media classes as a wise elder statesman on domestic and world affairs. It sums up the way this country is run by a corrupt and blood-soaked establishment. Proving the point, the Financial Times recently tweeted:

    Sir Tony Blair is back. Once vilified as a “war criminal” by some in Labour, his influence within the party is growing again under Sir Keir Starmer. The FT speaks to the former UK premier: https://on.ft.com/3PDkIpE

    You’ve got to love the FT’s insistence on using ‘Sir’, as though that bestows some measure of respectability on a man who waged devastating wars of first resort in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Costs of War project, based at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, estimates that the total death toll in post-9/11 wars – including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria and Yemen – could be at least 4.5-4.7 million. Blair is one of the Western leaders who shares complicity for this appalling death toll. That fact has been essentially thrown down the memory hole by propaganda outlets who welcome him with open arms.

    Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark once explained how, following the 9/11 attacks, the US planned to ‘take out’ seven countries in five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. It is remarkable that this testimony, and compelling footage, has never been deemed credible evidence by ‘mainstream’ media.

    The notion that Blair was ‘once vilified’ as a war criminal – and let’s drop those quotation marks around ‘war criminal’ – as though that is no longer the case is ludicrous. In any case, what does the carefully selected word ‘vilify’ actually mean? According to the online Merriam-Webster dictionary, it can mean two things:

    • 1: to utter slanderous and abusive statements against: defame;
    • 2: to lower in estimation or importance.

    The FT would presumably like to implant in readers’ minds the idea that Blair has been unjustly accused of being a war criminal; that the suggestion is a slander. But Blair, along with Bush and the Cheney gang, was one of the chief accomplices behind the mass terrorist attack on Iraq in 2003. It was the ‘supreme international crime’, judged by the standards of the Nuremberg trials held after the Second World War.

    The accompanying FT photograph of a supposedly statesman-like ‘Sir’ Tony Blair was overlaid with a telling quote:

    [Britain’s] a country that is in a mess. We are not in good shape.

    Unmentioned is that Blair had a large part to play in creating today’s mess in Britain. Other than his great crimes in foreign affairs, he is an ardent supporter of the destructive economic system blandly titled ‘neoliberalism’. He continued along the path laid down by Tory leader Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. Indeed, when Thatcher was once asked what she regarded as her greatest achievement, she replied: ‘Tony Blair and New Labour’.

    As for Blair, he has described Thatcher in glowing terms as ‘a towering political figure’ whose legacy will be felt worldwide. He added:

    I always thought my job was to build on some of the things she had done rather than reverse them.

    The current Labour leader, Sir Keir Starmer – another ‘Sir’ and stalwart of the establishment – is unashamedly casting himself as a Blairite figure. They have even appeared in public together to ‘bask in each other’s reflected glory’, as one political sketch writer noted.

    Jonathan Cook observed of Blair:

    It says everything that Sir Keir Starmer, the UK’s former director of public prosecutions, is actively seeking to rehabilitate him.

    That’s the same Starmer who helped smear his leftwing predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn.

    The ‘Unprovoked’ Invasion of Ukraine

    The mass-media memory hole is proving invaluable in protecting the public from uncomfortable truths about Ukraine. Western leaders’ expression of concern for Ukraine is cover for their desire to see Russian leader Vladimir Putin removed from power and Russia ‘weakened’, as US Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin admitted earlier this year. Austin was previously a board member of Raytheon Technologies, a military contractor, stepping down with a cool sum of $2.7 million to join the Biden administration: yet another example of the ‘revolving door’ between government and the ‘defence’ sector.

    Australian political analyst Caitlin Johnstone noted recently that:

    Arguably the single most egregious display of war propaganda in the 21st century occurred last year, when the entire western political/media class began uniformly bleating the word “unprovoked” in reference to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

    Pointing out that the West ‘provoked’ Russia is not the same as saying that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was justified. In fact, we were clear in our first media alert following the invasion:

    Russia’s attack is a textbook example of “the supreme crime”, the waging of a war of aggression.

    As Noam Chomsky pointed out, the 2003 invasion of Iraq was totally unprovoked, but:

    nobody ever called it “the unprovoked invasion of Iraq.” In fact, I don’t know if the term was ever used; if it was, it was very marginal. Now you look it up on Google, and hundreds of thousands of hits. Every article that comes out has to talk about the unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. Why? Because they know perfectly well it was provoked. That doesn’t justify it, but it was massively provoked.’

    Bryce Greene, a media analyst with US-based Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR), observed that US policy makers regarded a war in Ukraine as a desirable objective:

    One 2019 study from the RAND Corporation—a think tank with close ties to the Pentagon—suggested that an effective way to overextend and unbalance Russia would be to increase military support for Ukraine, arguing that this could lead to a Russian invasion.

    The rationale was outlined in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece by John Deni of the Atlantic Council, a US think tank with close links to the White House and the arms industry, headlined “The Strategic Case for Risking War in Ukraine”. Greene summarised the logic:

    Provoking a war would allow the US to impose sanctions and fight a proxy war that would grind Russia down. Additionally, the anti-Russian sentiment that resulted from a war would strengthen NATO’s resolve.

    Greene added:

    The consensus among policymakers in Washington is to push for endless conflict, no matter how many Ukrainians die in the process. As long as Russia loses men and material, the effect on Ukraine is irrelevant. Ukrainian victory was never the goal.

    As Johnstone emphasised in her analysis:

    It’s just a welldocumented fact that the US and its allies provoked this war in a whole host of ways, from NATO expansion to backing regime change in Kyiv to playing along with aggressions against Donbass separatists to pouring weapons into Ukraine. There’s also an abundance of evidence that the US and its allies sabotaged a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine in the early weeks of the war in order to keep this conflict going as long as possible to hurt Russian interests.

    She continued:

    We know that western actions provoked the war in Ukraine because many western foreign policy experts spent years warning that western actions would provoke a war in Ukraine.

    But you will search in vain for substantive reporting of such salient facts and relevant history – see also this piece by FAIR – in ‘mainstream’ news media.

    A recent interview with the influential US economist and public policy analyst Jeffrey Sachs, former director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University, highlighted just how serious these media omissions are in trying to understand what is going on in Ukraine. In a superb 30-minute exposition, Sachs presented vital truths, not least that:

    I think the defining feature of American foreign policy is arrogance. And they can’t listen. They cannot hear red lines of any other country. They don’t believe they exist. The only red lines are American red lines.

    He was referring here to Russia’s red-line plea to the West not to continue expanding NATO right up to its borders; something, as mentioned above, Western foreign policy experts have been warning about for more than three decades. Would Washington ever allow a Russian sphere of influence to extend to US borders, with Mexico and Canada under the ‘evil spell’ of the Kremlin? Of course not.

    Sachs added:

    It’s pretty clear in early 2014 that regime change [in Ukraine] – and a typical kind of US covert regime change operation – was underway. And I say typical because scholarly studies have shown that, just during the Cold War period alone, there were 64 US covert regime change operations. It’s astounding.

    What is also astounding, but entirely predictable, is that any such discussion is impermissible in ‘respectable’ circles.

    Sachs described how the US reassured Ukraine after the Minsk II agreement in 2015, which was intended to bring peace to the Donbass region of Ukraine:

    Don’t worry about a thing. We’ve got your back. You’re going to join NATO.

    The role of Biden, then US Vice-President and now President, was to insist that:

    Ukraine will be part of NATO. We will increase armaments [to Ukraine].

    On 17 December 2021, Putin drafted a security agreement between Russia and the United States. Sachs read it and concluded that it was ‘absolutely negotiable’, adding:

    Not everything is going to be accepted, but the core of this is NATO should stop the enlargement so we don’t have a war.

    Sachs, who has long had high-level contacts within successive US administrations, then described an exchange he had over the telephone with the White House. ‘This war is avoidable’, he said. ‘Avoid this war, you don’t want a war on your watch.’

    But the White House was emphatic it would give no commitment to stop enlargement. Instead:

    No, no! NATO has an open-door policy [i.e. any country can supposedly join NATO.]

    Sachs responded:

    That’s a path to war and you know it. You’ve got to negotiate.

    Click. The White House hung up.

    Sachs told his interviewer:

    These people do not understand anything about diplomacy. Anything about reality. Their own diplomats have been telling them for 30 years this is a path to war.

    Sachs also related how Ukraine’s leader Volodymyr Zelensky was so taken aback when the Russian invasion began on 24 February 2022, that he started saying publicly, within just a few days, that Ukraine could be neutral; in other words, not join NATO. This was the essence of what Russia was seeking. But the Americans shut down that discussion, as Sachs went on to explain.

    By March 2022, Ukrainian and Russian officials were holding negotiations in Turkey. Meanwhile, Naftali Bennett, who was then Israel’s Prime Minister, was making progress in mediating between Zelensky and Putin, as he described during a long interview on his YouTube channel. But, ultimately, the US blocked the peace efforts. Sachs paraphrased Bennett’s explanation as to why:

    They [the US] wanted to look tough to China. They were worried that this could look weak to China.

    Incredible! The US’s primary concern is to look strong to China, its chief rival in world affairs. This recalls the motivation behind the US dropping atomic bombs on Japan at the end of the Second World War as a show of might to the Soviet Union.

    Infamously, Boris Johnson, then the British PM, travelled to Ukraine in April 2022, presumably under US directive, telling Zelensky not to negotiate with Russia.

    If we had truly democratic, impartial news media, all these facts would be widespread across national news outlets. BBC News correspondents would continually remind viewers and listeners how the West provoked Russia, then blocked peace efforts. Instead, the memory hole is doing its job – inconvenient facts are disappeared -and we are bombarded with wall-to-wall propaganda about Russia’s ‘unprovoked’ invasion of Ukraine.

    Libya: A Propaganda Masterclass

    The memory-hole phenomenon is a huge factor in media coverage of Libya which, as we wrote last week, has suffered terribly in recent flooding and the collapse of two dams. The city of Derna was washed into the sea after 40cm of rain fell in twenty-four hours, leaving 20,000 people dead.

    But vital recent history has been almost wholly buried by state-corporate media. In 2011, NATO’s attack on Libya essentially destroyed the state and killed an estimated 40,000 people. The nation, once one of Africa’s most advanced countries for health care and education, became a failed state, with the collapse of essential services, the re-emergence of slave markets and raging civil war.

    The massive bombing, heavily involving the UK and France, had been enthusiastically championed (see our 2011 media alerts here and here) by Western politicians and state-corporate media, including BBC News, as a ‘humanitarian intervention’ to get rid of an ‘autocratic dictator’, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.

    The tipping point was the alleged threat of a massacre by Gaddafi’s forces in Benghazi. A senior government official serving under then Prime Minister, David Cameron, stated:

    There was a very strong feeling at the top of this government that Benghazi could very easily become the Srebrenica of our watch. The generation that has lived through Bosnia is not going to be the “pull up the drawbridge” generation.

    The reference was to the massacre of 8,000 Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica in July 1995 by Bosnian Serb forces. The threat of something similar happening in Benghazi was a relentless theme across the airwaves and newspaper front pages. The Guardian, in line with the rest of the supposed ‘spectrum’ of British newspapers, promoted Cameron as a world-straddling statesman. The Arab Spring had ‘transformed the prime minister from a reluctant to a passionate interventionist.’ The paper dutifully helped his cause with sycophantic pieces such as the bizarrely titled, ‘David Cameron’s Libyan war: why the PM felt Gaddafi had to be stopped.’

    In August 2011, serial Guardian propagandist Andrew Rawnsley responded to NATO’s overthrow of the Libyan government:

    Libyans now have a chance to take the path of freedom, peace and prosperity, a chance they would have been denied were we to have walked on by when Muammar Gaddafi was planning his rivers of blood. Britain and her allies broadly got it right in Libya.

    The BBC’s John Humphrys opined that victory had delivered ‘a sort of moral glow.’ (BBC Radio 4 Today, 21 October 2011)

    There are myriad other examples from the Guardian and the rest of the ‘MSM’. The pathology of this propaganda blitz was starkly exposed by a 2016 report into the Libya war by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee. The report summarised:

    The result was political and economic collapse, inter-militia and inter-tribal warfare, humanitarian and migrant crises, widespread human rights violations, the spread of Gaddafi regime weapons across the region and the growth of ISIL in North Africa.

    As for the alleged threat of a massacre by Gaddafi’s forces in Benghazi, the repeated rationale for the intervention, the report commented:

    the proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence…Gaddafi’s 40-year record of appalling human rights abuses did not include large-scale attacks on Libyan civilians.’ (Our emphasis)

    More on this, and the propaganda blitz that enabled NATO’s attack on Libya, can be found in our 2016 media alert, “The Great Libya War Fraud“.

    Behind the rhetoric about removing a dictator was, of course, the underlying factor of oil; as it so often is in the West’s imperial wars. In 2011, Real News interviewed Kevin G. Hall, the national economics correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers, who had studied WikiLeaked material on Libya. Hall said:

    As a matter of fact, we went through 251,000 [leaked] documents… Of those, a full 10 percent of them, a full 10 percent of those documents, reference in some way, shape, or form oil.’ (‘WikiLeaks reveals US wanted to keep Russia out of Libyan oil,’ The Real News, 11 May 2011)

    Hall concluded:

    It is all about oil.

    In 2022, Declassified UK reported that:

    British oil giants BP and Shell are returning to the oil-rich north African country just over a decade after the UK plunged it into chaos in its 2011 military intervention, which the British government never admitted was a war for oil.

    There were additional ‘benefits’ to the West. As WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange explained in an interview with John Pilger, Hillary Clinton intended to exploit the removal of Gaddafi as part of her corporate-funded bid to become US president. Clinton was then US Secretary of State under President Barack Obama:

    Libya’s war was, more than anyone else’s, Hillary Clinton’s war…who was the person who was championing it? Hillary Clinton. That’s documented throughout her emails [leaked emails published by WikiLeaks]’.

    Assange added:

    She perceived the removal of Gaddafi, and the overthrow of the Libyan state, something that she would use to run in the election for President.

    You may recall Clinton’s gleeful response to the brutal murder of Gaddafi:

    We came, we saw, he died.

    Also, as Assange pointed out, the destruction of the Libyan state generated a catastrophe of terrorism and a refugee crisis, with many drowning in their attempts to cross the Mediterranean to Europe:

    Jihadists moved in. ISIS moved in. That led to the European refugee and migrant crisis. Because, not only did you have people fleeing Libya, people then fleeing Syria, destabilisation of other African countries as the result of arms flows, the Libyan state itself was no longer able to control movement of people through it…. [Libya] had been effectively the cork in the bottle of Africa. So, all problems, economic problems, civil war in Africa – people previously fleeing those problems didn’t end up in Europe.

    Very little of the above vital history and context to the recent catastrophic flooding in Libya is included in current ‘mainstream’ news reporting. At best, there is token mention. At worst, there is deeply deceitful and cynical rewriting of history.

    A report on the Sky News website went about as far as is permissible in detailing the reality:

    Libyans are worn down by years and years of poor governance many of which date back to 2011 and the NATO-backed ousting of the country’s autocratic dictator Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, during the period which became known as the Arab Spring.

    Gaddafi was killed and the country dived into instability with rival armed militias vying for power and territory.

    An article for the BBC News Africa section gave an even briefer hint of the awful truth:

    Libya has been beset by chaos since forces backed by the West’s NATO military alliance overthrew long-serving ruler Col Muammar Gaddafi in October 2011.

    This was the only mention in the article of Western responsibility for the disaster. The shameful propaganda censorship was highlighted when the article was posted by the BBC Africa Twitter/X account. So many readers pointed out the glaring omissions that a Twitter/X warning of sorts appeared under the BBC’s tweet:

    Readers added context they thought people might want to know.

    Then:

    Due to NATO intervention in Libya, several problems such as the lack of a unified government, the re-emergence of slave markets and collapse of welfare services have made the country unable to cope with natural disasters.

    If such ‘context’ – actually, vital missing information – were to regularly appear under BBC tweets because of reader intervention, it would be a considerable public service; and a major embarrassment for the self-declared ‘world’s leading public service broadcaster’.

    A major reason for the appalling death toll in the Libyan city of Derna was that two dams had collapsed, sending 30 million cubic metres of water into the city in ‘tsunami-like waves’. These dams were built in the 1970s to protect the local population. A Turkish firm had been contracted in 2007 to maintain the dams. This work stopped after NATO’s 2011 bombing campaign. The Turkish firm left the country, their machinery was stolen and all work on the dams ended. This was mentioned briefly in a recent Guardian article, but NATO’s culpability was downplayed and it certainly did not generate the huge headlines across the ‘MSM’ that it warranted.

    Further crucial context was also blatantly flushed down the media’s memory hole: NATO had deliberately destroyed Libya’s water infrastructure in 2011. Investigative journalist Nafeez Ahmed reported in 2015:

    The military targeting of civilian infrastructure, especially of water supplies, is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions. Yet this is precisely what NATO did in Libya, while blaming the damage on Gaddafi himself.

    Ros Atkins, who has acquired a huge profile as an expert ‘explainer’, with the moniker ‘BBC News Analysis Editor’, narrated a video for the BBC News website ‘on the floods in Libya – and the years of crisis there too.’ Once again, NATO’s appalling role in the 2011 destruction of the country was glossed over. The BBC’s ‘explanation’ explained virtually nothing.

    Meanwhile, the Guardian ran a wretched editorial which is surely one of the worst Orwellian rewritings of history it has ever published:

    Vast fossil fuel reserves and regional security objectives have encouraged foreign powers to meddle in Libya.

    As noted above, that was emphatically not the story in 2011 when the Guardian propagandised tirelessly for ‘intervention’. The editorial continued:

    Libyans have good reason to feel that they have been failed by the international community as well as their own leaders.

    In fact, they were also failed by Guardian editors, senior staff, columnists and reporters who did so much to sell ‘Cameron’s war’ on Libya. Nowhere in the editorial is NATO even mentioned.

    And beneath this appalling, power-serving screed was a risible claim of reasons for supporting the Guardian:

    Our fearless, investigative journalism is a scrutinising force at a time when the rich and powerful are getting away with more and more, in Europe and beyond.

    This assertion is an audacious reversal of truth from one of the worst perpetrators of memory-hole journalism in the Western world.

  • Monday, September 11, 2023 marked the 22nd Anniversary of the NYC 9/11, a day of global mourning, the beginning, or activation, of a crime of biblical proportions like never before in history remembered. Activation stands for onslaught of a colossal War on Humanity. What the small supremacist elite calls War on Terror is nothing less than an endless war on mankind. A war waged by a death cult. The preparation for the war started decades or probably hundred-plus years before.

    Two planes hitting the twin towers of the NYC World Trade Center (WTC) on September 11, 2001 – probably remote-controlled – because most pilots admit this kind of close-curved maneuver necessary to hit the towers was impossible to carry out by a pilot.

    The world was told the perpetrators were a group of some 12 Saudi terrorists. An outright lie. One of the first ones – to be followed by countless others – all in the name of instilling fear to control mankind, to eventually upgrade the war to a killing machine – leading onto the infamous UN Agenda 2030, alias the Great Reset, and the all-digitizing, QR-code -crowned Fourth Industrial Revolution, what Klaus Schwab, WEF’s founder and CEO proudly claims as his brainchild.

    Who else could come up with a new world order based on linearism, digitalized transhumanism, 180-degrees opposite of what life, the universe is – an infinite multitude of dynamism – life in multiple dimensions, evolving naturally as a cog in the universe’s endless wheel?

    Right there on NYC’s 9/11, more than 3000 people were killed. Thousands more followed in the immediate aftermath.

    The third building that collapsed a day later – seemingly out of the blue – was apparently ripe with documented evidence of the crime. Almost silence by the media.

    And to this day, nobody knows what happened to the people on the plane that apparently crashed into an open field in Pennsylvania. No debris and no people were ever found. Here too, no media coverage, no investigation – just destined to be forgotten.

    What happened to the dozens of policemen and firefighters who were near the WTC towers and in their basements, reporting on hearing explosions underground and in the lower strata of the extremely solid constructions just before they collapsed in the well-known style of purposeful city demolition techniques? Most of them were never seen again. “Victims” of the accident?

    Overall, since the NYC-9/11 millions of people were killed in the aftermath of the trigger to the so-called war on terror, which, in fact, was meant to be — and is — a war on humanity.

    The onslaught of wars began. The US invasion of Afghanistan, barely a month after the suspected auto-coup of the 9/11 Twin Towers implosion. The pretext was Osama Bin Laden, an Al Qaeda CIA recruit, who, the George W. Bush Administration lied, having orchestrated the 9/11 attack from Afghanistan, had to be eliminated by invading the mountainous and resources-rich Afghanistan landlocked in the center of Asia.

    Al Qaeda was a CIA creation of the late 1980’s, already then as an instrument to justify the coming war on terror.

    True reasons for invading Afghanistan were several: The Turkmenistan–Afghanistan–Pakistan–India Gas Pipeline, also known as Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline, or TAPI Pipeline, was to bring natural gas from the world’s second largest gas fields in Galkynysh, Turkmenistan, discharging 33 billion cubic meters of gas per year to the Gulf of India. Washington wanted control over this largest gas transit, potentially disrupting US petrol giants market dominance.

    The ever-closer relations between Afghanistan and China were a thorn in the eyes for US political supremacy, and finally the extreme mineral riches especially rare earths, vital for production of electronics and chips used for military equipment as well as for multiple civilian uses.

    Afghanistan was the first “leg” on the endless “War on Terror”.

    The Afghanistan invasion was followed by the May 2003 Iraq invasion, one of the hydrocarbon richest countries in the Middle East, with a leader, Saddam Hussein, who was at the point of defying OPEC rules of trading hydrocarbons in US-dollars only. Saddam wanted to trade Iraq’s hydrocarbons in Euros. Iraq was also labeled an al Qaeda terrorist country.

    A “Shock and Awe” attack should eliminate the country’s leader and bring Iraq to her knees before the almighty US of A. By now we know that it did not exactly happen that way. It was probably also planned as an endless war.

    Iraq – another “War on Terror” – emanating from the 9/11 auto-attack.

    Syria. From 2011 forward Washington’s secret service created a “civil war” applying the principle of divide to conquer. In September 2014 the conflict culminated in the US intervening, siding with the [US-created] Syrian rebels, fighting the Islamic State, the so-called “Operation Inherent Resolve” in what was labeled international war against the Islamic State.

    In truth, Washington wanted to get rid of the highly popular and democratically elected Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad. Again, the interest was control over the large Syrian oil and mineral resources.

    Also, under the flag of “War on Terror”.

    Coincidentally – though, there are no coincidences – the Ukraine war also started in [February] 2014, by the US instigated coup against the democratically elected Viktor Yanukovych. Remember Victoria Nuland’s recorded phone conversation with the US Ambassador in Kiev – “f**k Europe”?  And the recent admission by NATO boss, Jens Stoltenberg, that the Ukraine War started already in 2014?

    Other US-initiated wars and conflicts followed.  In Sudan in 2006 / 2007 after the broken Darfur Peace Agreement; in Pakistan in 2011 under the pretext and on the heels of several targeted killings in Karachi, leaving hundreds of people dead. US presence never left the country, as Pakistan was attempting establishing closer relations with China.

    To the “war on terror” may also be counted the October 2011 US / French / NATO lynching of Libyan President, Muammar Gaddafi, leaving the country as of this day in a state of constant civil strife and mafia-like killings and enslavement of refugees. Gaddafi was about to introduce the Gold Dinar as a unified currency for Africa to liberate Africa from French and US/K currency exploitation.

    The NYC 9/11 was — and is — a war instrument that until this day has not been fully recognized as what it was supposed to be – a precursor to possibly the planned final phase for civilization as we know it, the UN Agenda 2030, alias The Great Reset, leading to the full digitization of humanity into transhumanism and simply a One World Order (OWO), run by full control via digitization of everything, complemented with Artificial Intelligence (AI).

    It is the plan. A scary plan, a plan with the purpose of instilling fear. Thus, it is hoped, making the population defenseless against a tyrannical take-over.

    This plan will not materialize.

    Lest we forget, it is important to point out that there was another 9/11 “event” 50 years back that took place in Chile. It also killed instantly hundreds of people, and over the following 16 years, until General Pinochet’s demise in March 1990, tens of thousands of people disappeared and were killed.

    The purpose of the US-instigated and Henry Kissinger executed military coup in Chile was to get rid of the “uncomfortable” democratically elected, socialist-leaning, President Salvador Allende so that the United States could implement and test a “Chicago Boys” designed neoliberal economic system to run an entire country. Later to be repeated throughout Latin America, a remedy to make sure Latin America would keep their US “Backyard” status, for a long time to come.

    The “Chicago Boys” were a group of Chilean and international economists, most of whom were educated in the 1970s and 1980s by arch-conservative Milton Friedman at the Department of Economics of the University of Chicago.

    Also, not to forget, the major coup planner and instigator, was the then Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, under Richard Nixon’s presidency. Kissinger later received the Nobel Peace Prize for his alleged peace efforts in the Vietnam war which he also “directed”, and following his ordered bombing of Cambodia and Laos to bloody rubble with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of deaths. Remember the infamous “Killing Fields” in Cambodia?  Well, that was also Henry Kissinger, arguably the most notorious war criminal still alive.

    Earlier this year, Henry Kissinger turned 100. This could be natural old age, or it could be old age enhanced by adrenochrome.

    Is it sheer coincidence that the Santiago Chile and the NYC Nine-Eleven massacres are exactly 50 years apart? A half a century.

    There are no coincidences. Just connecting the dots.

    As a reminder 911 is the emergency-call number in the United States. That is hardly a coincidence.

    Kissinger is a close buddy, ally and advisor of Klaus Schwab, CEO of the controversial World Economic Forum (WEF). As of this day, Kissinger’s advice is sought by leaders around the world.

    In July 2023, Kissinger was received by China’s President Xi Jinping, who apparently greeted Kissinger with a comment, “old friends” like him will never be forgotten. The irony is subtle. The US-initiated meeting was apparently meant to mend frayed ties between Washington and Beijing.

    A tremendous attribute for President Xi. He is always open for initiatives potentially leading to improved relations, harmony, and peace.

    Back to NYC-9/11

    What we, especially the western world’s humanity, currently are living is a colossal crime never seen and recorded before in known history.

    After 9/11 for many, and for a long time for most, flying has become a nightmare and a huge business for a few. The long security lines, the manual checking – often more reminiscent of groping – of passengers, who often for some medical reasons, have a hard time passing through the control machines without the red-light flashing.

    The first US Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge and associates, became insanely rich by launching the manufacturing of the airport security machines that were imposed worldwide, and which are being constantly upgraded.

    Backtracking 

    9/11 sparked “wars on terror” – alias on humanity — that may have had several phases of activation.

    The Club of Rome, first unofficially meeting in 1956 in Rome, was formally created in 1968 as an initiative of David Rockefeller with Aurelio Peccei, Alexander King and Dr. Mamphela Ramphele, founder and President of Africa’s Agang party, and others.

    The Club of Rome issued in 1972 the infamous report “Limits to Growth” (LTG), arguing against continued economic and population growth, setting the first marks for a massive eugenist agenda, a population reduction down to about 500 million people from today’s 8 billion-plus, a reduction of about 95%.

    Dennis Meadows, one of the main authors of the Club of Rome’s “The Limits of Growth”, is a member of the World Economic Forum. He propagates as of this day massive population reduction. See this.

    This eugenist plan is as of this day the blueprint for what we are living. It is the core for UN Agenda 2030, the Great Reset and All-digitization.

    From it was born covid, the worldwide coercive vaxx mandate, possibly more lab-made “viruses” to come, as well as the climate change hoax, justifying geoengineering of weather, causing droughts, floods, never-seen-before hurricanes and tornadoes, Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) caused forest and other fires, like the destruction of Lahaina on Maui, and others – all bringing about poverty, famine, misery, and death.

    Closing the circle with NYC’s 9/11 setting the stage 22 years ago.

    There is no waiting. We must resist with heart and soul and peaceful spirits. We shall never forget 9/11 and what it triggered, and we shall overcome.

  • Since 9/11, US wars have become widespread, everyday affairs that most Americans know next to nothing about. The largest wars like Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya have a limited place in public consciousness, but the dozens of secret operations taking place across the planet are alien to most of us. How does the war machine work today, and how do government, the media, and new technologies help to obscure war from the public? Norman Solomon tackles these questions on The Marc Steiner Show in a discussion around his new book, War Made InvisibleHow America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine.

    Studio / Post-Production: David Hebden


    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Marc Steiner:

    Welcome to the Marc Steiner Show here on The Real News. I’m Marc Steiner. It’s great to have you all with us.

    I want to share a quote with you that really popped in my head after finishing reading War Made Invisible, by Norman Solomon, How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine. And as I introduce Norman to us all once again, think about this: America has been at war for 93% of our time of existence on this planet, 231 years out of 247 years, as a nation, since 1776. That means that only 20 years since the birth of this nation have we been at peace. Why is that? Who are we? Why do these wars keep taking place, and now wars are even more dangerous than they ever were because we don’t see them, feel them, or hear them, which is what Norman Solomon writes about in huge detail and graphically for us to understand where we sit.

    The book again, War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine. Norman, welcome back. Good to have you with us.

    Norman Solomon:

    Thanks, Marc.

    Marc Steiner:

    So you’ve written about war many times before but there’s something that really struck me as I read this book and finished it again which is how insidious the war machine has become, even since my time during the Vietnam War or my father’s time in World War II. There’s an insidiousness into the way it is hidden from us and how much more powerful and horrendous it’s become.

    Norman Solomon:

    Insidious is a good word. It has worked its way into, you might say, the wallpaper of the media echo chambers. It’s ironic that media technology now has a capacity to convey to us, at least within the limits of any technology, the ways in which wars harm human beings and cause such desolation and such suffering. So with better technology than ever, we get less and less. And that’s driven by who dominates and controls the technology and the fact that as these wars have gone on in this century, they’ve become more and more abstracted. There are fewer and fewer so-called boots on the ground. We’re above it all, literally and figuratively, bombing from the air, sending drones from many thousands of miles away. So the end result is that these abstractions become more and more acute, even as the military-industrial media complex makes killing more and more so-called normal.

    Marc Steiner:

    I was going to wait till later to say this but I wanted to throw it out here early because I thought you very profoundly addressed it in your books, especially towards the end of the book, which is how we see it in some places and we don’t see it in other places. We might see it in Europe, we might see it in Ukraine, but we don’t see it, whether it was our wars in Afghanistan or Iraq or what we’ve done all throughout and continue to do all throughout the continent of Africa, and how race and racism is tied into all this and winds its way through in the wars that grip all the people who are involved.

    Norman Solomon:

    I think of it as a series of Venn diagrams: The overlays where there are these factors that determine largely whether, as people in the US through US media, we see, hear, and read about wars in terms of empathetic graphic detail or not. One is race. As you mentioned and has really occurred to me in the course of writing this book, racism has had so much of an effect on US foreign policy and military intervention and yet we hear virtually nothing about that in mass media, certainly not from politics in Washington. Whereas when you think about it, the last few years, because of the wonderful movements that have consolidated behind Black Lives Matter and so forth, structural racism, systemic racism, is being talked about, not enough, but a lot more. And yet, that discourse exists only about domestic policy.

    And something that stunned me as I was working on this book was to realize that in the more than 20 years of the so-called War on Terror, the victims of US firepower around the world have been virtually all people of color. It’s hidden in plain sight. And when I realized that and wrote a whole chapter in the book about it, when the book came out, I sent a little op-ed to a number of daily newspapers and they all rejected it and what struck me is I’ve never read a piece to that effect. It’s not like I was saying stuff that had been repeated before. So, this is almost a taboo subject.

    And then when you overlay that with the nationalism, the jingoism, and the ideology out of Washington, when the designated enemies of the US kill people in war, such as Russians slaughtering people in Ukraine, that is empathetically reported. But when the US has slaughtered people in Afghanistan or Iraq, another big power invading another country illegally, very little empathy.

    Marc Steiner:

    I’m going to have to read this one thing, one of the quotes. You have many powerful quotes in this, we’ll get to a few of them in the course of our conversation. But you have this one from Kelebogile Zvobgo and Meredith Loken and I want to read it to give the perspective on what you’re saying. The quote is, “Race is not a perspective on international relations; it’s a central organizing feature of world politics… And today race shapes threat perception and responses to violent extremism, inside and outside the ‘war on terror.’ Yet one cannot comprehend world politics while ignoring the race and racism. Race continues to shape our international and domestic threat perceptions.”

    And that really is key. What’s happening in Ukraine is horrendous. What’s happening across many places but we don’t have the same empathetic structure as when it happens anywhere in the continent of Africa or in Asia or in Latin America. And much of the media backing what America does or ignoring those conflicts, unless they happen in Europe, exasperates the racism that grips this world.

    Norman Solomon:

    When you overlay the factors of personal, institutional racism for us foreign policy and warfare with the agendas of the geopolitical power of corporate-driven US foreign policy and access to raw materials, geopolitical positioning and all that, you get a great example of that, a very sad and horrible one.

    When you think about if you drive around your neighborhood, certainly around mine, and this is the case in so much of the US, you will see Ukrainian flags displayed in solidarity with the people being bombed and strafed and murdered by the invading force, the Russian force. And I’m all for that.

    Marc Steiner:

    Absolutely, right.

    Norman Solomon:

    And I’m all for the empathetic US media coverage of the people in Ukraine. The spin, the political lack of historical context and so forth, that’s another matter. But in terms of the suffering on the ground in Ukraine, and that has caused this outpouring of emotion and support, including the display of Ukrainian flags, okay, that’s part of what being human should be, empathizing, what journalism should be.

    I can’t find in my neighborhood, and I’m not aware of anywhere in the US, a display of Yemeni flags. People in Yemen have been slaughtered with US government support since 2015, under three presidencies. You had under Obama, then Trump, then Biden. There’s a bit of a ceasefire now but for seven or eight years the killing of people with US government active support, shipping of billions of dollars worth of arms sales to Saudi Arabia leading the killing in Yemen, the UN saying almost 400,000 people have died in that war, the largest cholera epidemic in human history. How can it be that the US, as a country, as a people, as media are so empathetic towards people invaded and killed in Ukraine but not in Yemen? And that is a clear instance of how corrupted, how morally corrosive this environment is for us, personally and politically, and in terms of media coverage.

    Marc Steiner:

    I’m curious. As I read your book, and especially after I finished it, thinking about all the things you posited… Let me give one of the stats here and talk about what you think is happening and why it has happened this way because war has always been part of humankind. I can’t think of a period of human history where it has not existed but we are reaching a point now where it could literally destroy the place we live, this entire planet.

    And you write how we spent $50 billion a year over the last 20 years, that’s $2.1 trillion going to five firms: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman. The sheer size of the amount of money that we spend on war and preparing for war and it’s war that’s not like the war that people saw that were troops on the ground; This is a war that’s unseen. And now you couple that with the world of artificial intelligence and how that is beginning to even expand the notion of war without boots on the ground. So tell me what you think that dynamic together means for us now and where do you think that takes us?

    Norman Solomon:

    I think it means for us and it takes us further into a realm, a status quo, a so-called normality, where the more ubiquitous the power of the military industrial complex is, the less it’s talked about and the less it’s objected to. I think of how then-senator Harry Truman during World War II gained a lot of acclaim for chairing hearings on Capitol Hill as a senator, investigating what was very derisively, critically called war profiteering. And I really can’t remember any uproar in recent years in the US throughout the entire so-called war on terror, about war profiteering. As you mentioned, a few corporations making a killing, literally and figuratively, by increasingly selling aerospace products of one or another, but all tools of the trade of the killing industry. And yet, we get virtually no critical coverage.

    Even on Capitol Hill among progressives, there is talk about, yes, the military budget is too high. But we are not hearing about that very essence, the core of the military-industrial complex, which is much more pervasive and much more powerful even since then-outgoing President Dwight Eisenhower coined the term in 1961.

    Marc Steiner:

    The military-industrial complex, right?

    Norman Solomon:

    Yes, the military-industrial complex.

    Marc Steiner:

    There’s so much in this book. It’s jam-full of interesting analysis that you put into all of this. For me, there’s a real question here about the world we are entering and what you think the response can be and how it can be developed. Because one of the things, the Vietnam War… And I started reading some more about the Vietnam War and media after reading your book. And while much of the media went along with the war and glorified the war, it also exposed the war at the same time which meant to expose the American public and the rising numbers of people who were opposed to the Vietnam War.

    But I wonder, given where we are now, how do you think you begin to build a movement that’s truly against the wars that we propagate around the world and the wars that our children are going to face? Where do you think this takes us? And how do you think we address it and oppose it and stop it?

    Norman Solomon:

    It seems to me that a foundation for any powerful movement is realism, not fatalism. On the contrary, willingness and eagerness to challenge the status quo and make the world a whole lot better, turn around these horrible, terrible trends, but a realism that says we must do all we can to make the world better for the next generations, and in the case of the nuclear age now, make the world possible.

    And so I think of a couple of quotes. One is from Antonio Gramsci, the great anti-fascist imprisoned under Mussolini, who talked about the need for what he called “pessimism of the intellect and optimism of the will.” So on the one hand, the realism, no sugarcoating like we get so often from mass media, unfortunately from the Biden Administration, about the status quo. Sugarcoating is not going to do it. We need a pessimism of the intellect, as Gramsci called it, and optimism of the will, which we could refer to as a determination, insistence. This is humanity that has to galvanize our own creative life-affirming power.

    And another quote that comes to mind is one that I actually close this book on from James Baldwin: “Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.” That as a foundation, and then we have to organize like crazy. And that has many components. I’m sometimes asked, what is the thing that all of us should do? And my answer is, there’s nothing that all of us should do. We need to build and create and grow movements the way we’d have a healthy forest. We don’t say, “Well, we just need a lot of good trees,” or, “We need a lot of good ground cover or soil.” We need all the above and so much more.

    And so in a nutshell, I think a healthy movement of course has to sustain and support much more effectively independent alternative progressive media, certainly the Real News among the outlets that are vital. We’ve got to support what exists, not take anything for granted, and find ways to greatly expand the power of media and communications, local, regional, international, and make communication not vertical but horizontal so we can really organize.

    And then the last point I would make, which is broad, but I think absolutely crucial. We have to organize, we have to put more resources, time, energy, thought and cooperation into how we can counter the power of the military industrial complex bringing us the specter of nuclear annihilation and this climate emergency that is so terrible and ominous for future generations, and we have to run counter to our training because our training through mass media and political culture is to be passive. The corporate media really just encourages us to buy things and maybe vote once in a while. We need to turn that around and really make change from the grassroots.

    Marc Steiner:

    I’m going to put this in perspective a bit. You have this great quote in here from the Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the Iraq Family Health Survey that I covered, and it talks about that the casualties in the war, almost 4,500 Americans killed, 32,000 wounded. It’s the post-war, the cost of almost $1 trillion worth of care for veterans. But then this quote, “The foregoing cost could conceivably be justified if the Iraq intervention had improved the United States’ strategic position in the Middle East, but this clearly is not the case. The Iraq war has strengthened anti-US elements and made the position in the United States and its allies more precarious.”

    Now, clearly that’s a kind of pro-American Defense Department statement on one level, but on the other hand, it really exposes, in not enough depth, what these wars have done in terms of helping create the terrorism, the dysfunction, the failed states, and the authoritarianism across the planet. And that’s the connection people don’t make I think.

    Norman Solomon:

    That was a quote yes, from the Center for American Progress aligned by the Clinton clan 10 years into the Iraq war, and they were simply totting up the balance sheet. They were saying basically, as I write in the book, the war was a flop. They thought it would be great for US power in the Middle East and so forth. It hasn’t panned out that way. So they do the calculus of was the war worth it in strictly monetary terms, in terms of geopolitical power? And even on its own terms, these wars, Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere in the century from the US, they haven’t been successful. At the same time, Raytheon, Boeing, other huge military contractors, they never lose a war.

    And so just as with the horrible war going on in Ukraine right now with refusal to engage in genuine diplomacy from Washington or from Moscow, the arms dealers, they’re just doing great. I mean, this is a war that is a dream for the military industrial complex of the US of 2023 and beyond. They just see billions of dollars of profits.

    And looking at it just from a macrocosm, this is a system that is insane. Daniel Ellsberg, in his last and just such a vital book, The Doomsday Machine, quotes Nietzsche, the philosopher, who says that, “Madness in individuals is rare, but madness in nations and governments is routine.” And I think we’re coming to the extreme of that where diplomacy has become a dirty word in the United States and the double standards, what Orwell would call the doublethink that we’ve been talking about, is so ingrained that we have a kind of an atmosphere now politically and in media in terms of US militarism that I would compare to what happened in the months after 9/11 and happened during the McCarthy era.

    Yes, this is a different point in history, but the squelching of real challenge and open debate about US militarism is really extreme and it’s part of our challenge, as we were talking about a couple of minutes ago, to build movements just to say, we’re going to create new dialogue, we’re going to ask key questions because we know that the questions being framed right now are suicidal and omnicidal globally. These are questions that are mainstream, like, how do we defeat the Russians? How do we counter the Chinese threat in the South China Sea, for instance, without asking why does the South China Sea have its middle name? It’s called the South China Sea because it’s pretty close to China.

    And here we have the United States that has proclaimed, and we started out, you were talking Marc, I think quite rightly, about how almost the entire history of the United States has engaged, been involved in some kind of warfare. The Monroe Doctrine, from the very beginning, we get to run this hemisphere. Now that’s not enough. We need to also say that the surrounding area of China, Chinese military vessels are a threat. I mean, this is this sort of hubris and arrogance that is normalized coming from the power centers in Washington. Unless we break that mold and shatter that acceptance of such suicidal, global, omnicidal approaches, we will be stuck in what Martin Luther King Jr. called the Madness of Militarism.

    Marc Steiner:

    And that last quote, I’ve been thinking about that a lot given that we are at the 60th anniversary of The March on Washington. I’ve been contemplating his words a lot recently and what those struggles were like then.

    But one of the things I think I really want to raise with you and talk to you about when it comes to this is you really lay out the devastation that these wars have created in the countries where we’ve launched these wars, Afghanistan, Iraq, what’s happening in Yemen and more, the deaths, the complete disruption of society that’s taken place.

    And we are also in a time, as I said earlier, and I really want to probe this with you because I know you think about this a great deal and it comes out in the book, which is the last war that really affected masses of people in this country that we fought as a nation was Vietnam. And since then, there’s been a great disconnect between the American populace, between our consciousness, and the wars we fight. And it’s an odd twist because it also is entangled in all of our struggles and the draft. What we’ve done in some respects is create a professional army that is disconnected from the rest and one that is deeply connected to war, to remote war, and the devastation its causing.

    That’s what I kept thinking about as I was reading your book, is that we’ve come into a really much more dangerous place when it comes to global hegemony and war and the disconnect we all feel from it.

    Norman Solomon:

    The disconnect has become much more severe even while the risks have become more extreme. Nuclear superpowers based in Moscow and Washington, increasingly in conflict. It’s the Doomsday Clock from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the closest it’s ever been, I think 90 seconds now, to apocalyptic midnight. And yet there’s sort of a sleepwalking towards catastrophe that independent progressive media outlets such as this one and social movements have got to directly challenge.

    The reality is that as much as we are told the United States is an exceptional nation, the indispensable nation, actually just indispensable to itself as I say in the book, the reality is we live on a globe that is spherical. What goes around comes around. We’ve learned that with the climate emergency, we’ve learned that with COVID. It’s a sort of a derangement, this kind of US bravado, this jingo narcissism that exempts us, we think or we’re told we should think or assume, from the realities that we’re on this one human planet, this one planet together with human beings.

    And so what goes around does come around, and that underscores that just because there are a few boots on the ground now in other countries and missile strikes, drone attacks and so forth are more and more central to US warfare doesn’t mean we are at war, and people at the other end of the missiles and bombs, they know that we are at war. They are being besieged, they are being sacrificed by people who vote appropriations on Capitol Hill and will never know their names or see their faces.

    And then another part of what goes around comes around is the savage attacks on US budgets, the escalating military spending while, whether you’re in Baltimore, San Francisco, or anywhere else in this country, you’re not far from places where people are grievously suffering from lack of adequate healthcare, education, housing, infant care, elderly care. That is a reality. That’s part of what the militarized society brings to people and takes away from human lives.

    I think about how, as you mentioned, Marc, in the last few days, justifiably, there’s been a lot of media coverage of the 60th Anniversary of The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, the beautiful “I Have a Dream” speech. Four years later, Martin Luther King gave his speech at Riverside Church beyond Vietnam where he called the United States the greatest purveyor of violence on the planet. I’m afraid that, overall in this century, has still been true. One of the things that he said, which is virtually never mentioned in mass media, is that out-of-control military spending, then as now, in ’67, he said that, “That spending is,” and I’m quoting here, “a destructive demonic suction tube taking away just the vital resources to sustain life in our own country.” And so that demonic suction tube is with us right now, and it’s part of the invisibility of war and living in a warfare state.

    Marc Steiner:

    As you said that, and in all kinds of thread that runs through your book is the human cost of war that you have seen in your own travels to different parts of the globe, the cost it is to this country and our own future with dystopian poverty coursing its way through every major urban and rural area of our country, and I think that that’s something that really most Americans are not aware of in terms of what we spend and what we are doing with federal money and what could be done to keep everyone afloat in America. I mean, I think that’s the imbalance that’s part of, to me, is part of the subtext of your book.

    Norman Solomon:

    One of the realities is that the proportion of discretionary spending from the federal government on the military keeps going up. It’s now about 55% of discretionary spending that Congress votes and the President signs. That’s going to the military, the Pentagon, nuclear weapons and so forth.

    As you mentioned that, Marc, one thing comes to mind that is a tough political nut to crack, so to speak. And yet I think it’s a challenge, but we got to look at it. And that is when you consider US foreign policy, with the exception of climate change and so forth, it’s very difficult to find substantive differences between the so-called leadership of the Democratic and Republican Party, say, on Capitol Hill. They’re both on the war train. They both want to drive the war train. They might disagree on how much military aid should go to Ukraine without diplomacy, but very few voices calling for diplomacy. They may disagree on exactly how much resources should be diverted from the Ukraine War to confronting China. Republicans tend to want to shift more of the hostility towards China, but there is a virtual consensus from both parties on Capitol Hill about US militarism.

    And then you get to domestic policy and the Republican Party is neofascist, and it is ridiculous for anyone to claim that there’s not a significant difference between the Republican and Democratic parties on domestic policy. We have a neoliberal Democratic Party in domestic policy, and we have a neofascist Republican Party on domestic policy.

    And so for progressives, I think we’re going to be facing, we’re already facing this dilemma, this terrible knot to try to untie or cut through in some way, whether it’s a Gordian Knot or not, I don’t know, but basically we have these two parties that are so similar in foreign policy and so diametrically, or at least so profoundly different under the circumstances, on domestic policy. It’s not to praise Democrats, of course. Bernie Sanders is right. There’s so much wrong with the Democratic Party, but to inflate the two for domestic policy is ridiculous, out of touch with reality. And yet, we have to somehow square this circle because we’re coming into an election year.

    Marc Steiner:

    I was thinking, I’m going to close with this, it made me think of this as I finished your book. I actually, I’m going to get some copies, several copies of your book, and send them to my grandsons and why? All three of them are in the military. And I remember going in saying to myself, when they were going in, saying to myself, “They’re all going into,” what I called at the moment, “the intellectual ends of the service.” They’re not going to be “in combat.” But then I realized, stepping back in my own analysis, that they’re all going to be in combat because that’s where combat’s going.

    Norman Solomon:

    That’s a great point. I mean, I have friends who have been in the military and they were behind computer consoles in the United States, and the people they were targeting were pixels on the screen.

    Marc Steiner:

    Not human beings on the ground. I mean, I think the way you put it in part of the book is near the end of the book when you talked about how we know intimately the lives of so many people who were killed in the 9/11 attacks on this country, who they were, what they did, what their hobbies were, their families, what they left behind. But we don’t know anything about the human beings or the intimacy of the lives of the human beings that we have been part of killing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, or any other part of the globe.

    Norman Solomon:

    One of the most powerful parts of the book to me, maybe the most powerful, involves the interview I did with Daniel Ellsberg, the great activist, the Pentagon Papers whistleblower a couple of years ago. And I sat with Dan Ellsberg on the porch next to his house, and he talked about exactly that point that you’re making, Marc. He said that he was really struck after 9/11 how the New York Times devoted tremendous journalistic resources to finding pictures and researching about the lives of everybody who was killed on 9/11, these little pictures, and would have a few words about, as Dan said, insight into what made them human. They liked to skydive or they were golfers or they were pianists, just to convey that they were really human beings whose lives were extinguished by this horrible act of mass murder that we call 9/11.

    And then Dan went on to say, “This could have been done after the Shock and Awe Attack on Baghdad after US troops arrived in the capitol of Iraq.” He said, “It would’ve been possible to find the names and find pictures of people who had been killed by the US attack on their city.” And then he paused and he said, “Of course, nothing like that ever happened. Nothing like that would happen from the New York Times.”

    Marc Steiner:

    And that’s true. That was a great quote. He was a great human being. One of my great pleasures in my life is meeting him numerous times and doing interviews with him. He had so much to teach us about where we’ve come from and where we’re going. And I know you two were very close.

    Norman Solomon:

    Dan used to say, and he would convey this in many ways, he appreciated being told that he inspired people, and then he would pause and he would say words to the effect, “Most important, what are you inspired to do?”

    Marc Steiner:

    Exactly, exactly. I was thinking about what you were just saying as well. I knew a number of people who were killed in the 9/11 attacks, and I have a number of friends who are Iraqi-Americans and Afghan-Americans now whose families were killed in Shock and Awe and killed in the wars in Afghanistan, two of the most unnecessary wars that ever existed in this country’s history, modern history anyway. The other wars made little sense either, but I think that you kind of made me think maybe it’d be interesting to have a conversation between all those people.

    Norman Solomon:

    Absolutely.

    Marc Steiner:

    About war.

    Norman Solomon:

    Yeah, yeah. The poet William Stafford, who I quote in the book, he wrote a poem called Every War Has Two Losers, and one side usually, or often, suffers much more than the other, but war is so corrosive. There’ve been times in my life, and I think for a whole lot of people, even if we’ve worked on war issues, well, I’ve wanted to think, “Well, I don’t think I really want to focus on that anymore. There’s so much else to work on.” And of course there is. There’s so many multidimensional problems and challenges, human realities that we need to encounter and try to improve the world about. Somehow though war is at such a core of what is ailing our country and the world, what is causing so much suffering, so much social dysfunction, and far worse than dysfunction, so much cruelty that is institutionalized. War is at the core.

    Marc Steiner:

    War is at the core. And Norman, I want to say one thing before we conclude, is that A, your books, all of them, this book is exceptionally well-written, and in your way of writing, you have the heart of a prose poet that makes it very easy to read because it could be a godawful tome and it’s not.

    Norman Solomon:

    Thanks, Marc.

    Marc Steiner:

    And I do want to encourage everybody to really check this book out. War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine by the wonderful Norman Solomon, who is kind of warning us about where we’ve been, where we are, and where we could be going. It’s a book that needs to be read, and I would encourage everybody to take this to their book groups in your neighborhoods and your friends, read it together, wrestle with it, and let us know what you think about what you wrestled with here. You can write to me at mss@therealnews.com. I’d love to get back to you on this. It’s really an important book, War Made Invisible by Norman Solomon.

    And Norman, it is always a joy to talk to you. Pleasure to talk to you. I appreciate the work you do. You can’t talk about war as a joy, but it’s always a treat to talk with you and appreciate the work you’ve done in taking the time with us here today.

    Norman Solomon:

    Thank you so much, Marc, and thanks for the Marc Steiner Show.

    Marc Steiner:

    I hope you enjoyed our conversation today with Norman Solomon about his book, War Made Possible: How the US Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine, and I really encourage everyone out there to read it, share it, talk about it with your friends. It’s really a very important book, one that’ll make you think, and you can really wrestle with the ideas that pop up.

    And I want to thank you all for joining us today, and I especially want to thank David Hebden, Kayla Rivara behind the scenes, and everyone here at The Real News for making this show possible. Please let me know what you’ve thought about, what you heard today, what you’d like us to cover. Just write to me at mss@therealnews.com and I’ll write you right back. And while you’re here, please go to www.therealnews.com/support, become a monthly donor and become part of the future with us.

    I’m Marc Steiner. Stay involved, keep listening, and take care.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Family members of people who have been forcibly disappeared in the Middle East gather outside venue marking day of the disappeared in Beirut holding photos of their missing loved ones.

    On 30 August 2023, Amnesty International reported on that Representatives of the families of people forcibly disappeared in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen gathered in Beirut to demand that their governments uphold their rights to truth, justice and reparation, during an event organized by AI to mark the International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances.    

    Across the Middle East, both state authorities and non-state actors, such as armed opposition groups, abduct and disappear people as a way to crush dissent, cement their power, and spread terror within societies, largely with impunity.   

    While most governments in the region have not yet investigated disappearances nor provided accurate numbers of those missing or disappeared, civil society organizations and UN bodies have published estimated numbers of people abducted and disappeared in each country. These numbers in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen, when multiplied by a conservative estimate of the total years these individuals have been missing, suggest that families have spent more than a million years waiting for answers – an agonizing length of time.  

    In the face of their governments’ apathy and complicity for the crime of enforced disappearances, the families of the disappeared across the Middle East have led the charge, year after year, in demanding their right to know what happened to their loved ones and to get justice and reparation – often at great personal risk,” said Aya Majzoub, Amnesty International’s Deputy Director for the Middle East and North Africa.   

    “Today we honour their perseverance and add our voice to theirs in calling for authorities to take real action to investigate these crimes, hold those suspected of criminal responsibility accountable and ensure these crimes are not committed again.”  

    Iraq  

    In Iraq, the UN estimates that between 250,000 to 1,000,000 individuals have been disappeared since 1968 – making it one of the countries with the highest number of disappearances in the world. Disappearances are still being carried out today at hands of militias affiliated with the government. Consecutive Iraqi governments have repeatedly failed to take meaningful steps to investigate disappearances or hold those suspected of criminal responsibility to account. Widad Shammari from Iraqi organization Al Haq Foundation for Human Rights, whose son has been missing since 2006, said: “I was a single protester until I met many others who shared my struggle, and we formed a strong coalition who fights for the truth for all the disappeared in the Arab region, not just Iraq.”  

    Lebanon    

    In Lebanon, the official estimate of those abducted or missing as a result of the 1975-1990 civil war is 17,415. Every year, on 13 April – the anniversary of the start of the Lebanese Civil War – the families of the missing and disappeared gather to mark the beginning of the conflict, repeating the mantra, “Let it be remembered, not repeated.”   

    The Lebanese authorities granted amnesty to the perpetrators of crimes that occurred during the civil war, but after years of campaigning, in 2018, the families of the disappeared successfully pressured the government to acknowledge the disappearances that took place. The government also passed a law that established the National Commission for the Missing and Forcibly Disappeared with a mandate to investigate individual cases, locate and exhume mass graves and enable a tracing process.   

    However, Wadad Halawani, whose husband was kidnapped in 1982 and who leads the Committee of the Kidnapped and Missing in Lebanon said: “Today, we raise our voice and shout out loud. The National Commission for the Missing and Forcibly Disappeared is 3 years old already. Only two years remain in its mandate. The Commission established a clear strategy for its work, but it cannot carry on without the needed financial and logistical support. The government must provide it with all the needed resources immediately.” 

    Syria  

    Since 2011, the Syrian authorities have forcibly disappeared tens of thousands of its actual or perceived opponents, including political activists, protestors, human rights defenders, journalists, lawyers, doctors, and humanitarian aid workers, as part of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population that amounts to crimes against humanity. Thousands have also gone missing after being detained by armed opposition groups and the so-called Islamic State. Given the Syrian government’s role in orchestrating the campaign of enforced disappearances, there has been total impunity for these crimes in Syria. The families have therefore resorted to international justice mechanisms.  

    In a momentous victory for the families, on 29 June 2023, the UN General Assembly voted to establish an international institution dedicated to shedding light on the fate and whereabouts of those missing and disappeared since the start of the armed conflict in Syria.  

    Fadwa Mahmoud from Families for Freedom, whose husband and son were disappeared in Syria in 2012 said: “We had big dreams in 2011. But we paid a very heavy price. My husband and son have been disappeared since September 2012… We faced our fears and raised our voice until it reached the United Nations …this [institution] is the product of our labour as the families of the detained…and this is its strength. We are demanding that we have an instrumental role in the institution.”

    My husband and son have been disappeared since September 2012… We faced our fears and raised our voice until it reached the United Nations …this [institution] is the product of our labour as the families of the detained…and this is its strength.Fadwa Mahmoud from Families for Freedom, whose husband and son were disappeared in Syria in 2012

    Yemen  

    In Yemen, human rights organizations have documented 1,547  cases of disappeared and missing people since 2015. All parties to the conflict, including the Huthi de facto authorities and the internationally recognized government forces, are still committing these crimes with impunity at a time when the world’s attention has turned away. Since the Human Rights Council voted in 2021 to end the mandate of the Group of Eminent Experts, following heavy lobbying from Saudi Arabia, efforts to hold all those suspected of criminal responsibility accountable in fair trials and realize victims’ rights to reparations have stalled.   

    The Abductees’ Mothers Association in Yemen said: “We were harassed and threatened and beaten-up during demonstrations, but we will not give up and we are determined at ensuring some progress every step of the way. We are not mothers of our own disappeared family members only; we consider ourselves mothers of every single disappeared person in the region and we will continue our fight for the truth for all of them.

    See also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2022/09/14/portraits-of-disappeared-defenders-paraded-in-bangkok/

    https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  •  

    Janine Jackson interviewed the Center for Constitutional Rights’ Baher Azmy about the Abu Ghraib lawsuit for the August 18, 2023, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

          CounterSpin230818Germain.mp3

     

    NYT: Soldier Who Called Out Torture in Iraq Is Laid to Rest at Arlington

    New York Times (8/8/23)

    Janine Jackson: Earlier this month, the New York Times ran a report on the Arlington National Cemetery burial of Ian Fishback, a former Special Forces officer who, as the Times said, “dared to challenge the Army on its soldiers’ sustained abuse of Iraqi and Afghan men in their custody.”

    Fishback’s testimony “unequivocally characterizing the soldiers’ behavior as torture,” the paper explained, “shattered the Pentagon’s insistence that the torture in [Abu Ghraib] was an isolated case,” but it did lead to personal harm and hardship for Fishback.

    Of course, the actions that Fishback was moved to denounce had horrific and enduring impacts on many other people, starting with the victims of the torture.

    The Times has unfortunately been not particularly interested in the stubborn insistence of those people in having their case heard. One piece in March noted that opponents of the Iraq War say that “the shame of the American abuses of prisoners at Abu Ghraib…have not been forgotten by history,” but it’s disheartening that that sentence appeared within a piece centered on how George W. Bush “doesn’t second-guess himself on Iraq.”

    The ongoing case against military contractor CACI Premier Technology, Inc., hired to provide interrogation services at Abu Ghraib, is a chance for reporters to prevent our forgetting.

    The Center for Constitutional Rights has been leading that case, which a federal judge has just said can move forward, since June 2008. We’re joined now by phone by Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights. Welcome back to CounterSpin, Baher Azmy.

    Baher Azmy: Thank you for having me.

    JJ: If you would ground us, first of all, with some context: This case is against a military contractor, not against the US government per se, and it’s about just a handful of plaintiffs. It’s not the be-all, end-all on the horrors of Abu Ghraib, much less the invasion and the war, but it is the last case standing, and it carries meaning, within itself and beyond itself, would you say?

    BA: Yeah, that’s right. This is actually the third of three cases we brought on behalf of Iraqi victims of torture by the US government and private military contractors in Iraq and Abu Ghraib.

    One case was thrown out by the DC Federal Court of Appeals, led by Kavanaugh, with a dissent from then-Judge Garland; a second case on behalf of 71 individuals brought against a translation company, L-3 Services, that settled favorably; and this, the third, is brought on behalf of three remaining plaintiffs, three victims of torture at the so-called “hard site” at Abu Ghraib, where all of the depictions of torture we have seen were revealed.

    And it’s very challenging to sue the US military for torture, but US generals did an investigation of the torture at Abu Ghraib and identified that private military contractors, including CACI, had a preeminent role.

    CACI sent a number of untrained individuals to serve as interrogators, under a very profitable $35 million contract. And as the reports and the evidence revealed, in the command vacuum that occurred at Abu Ghraib, it was CACI interrogators who were telling military police, including people you might recognize if you’re old enough—Lynndie England, Ivan Frederick and Charles Graner—to “soften up” detainees via torture for later interrogation by CACI.

    So this seeks accountability against the private military contractor for actions that US service members spent considerable time in a military brig for, and it seeks to close that accountability gap, and hold this profit-making enterprise accountable for its clear role in contributing to the torture and abuse of our plaintiffs.

    JJ: I don’t know if it matters to say at this point that prisoners in Abu Ghraib were not criminals—these were not people who were charged and convicted—but maybe that’s worth mentioning here.

    BA: Correct. And there are clear, clear duties under the laws of war with respect [to] what is called cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment. And, notably, the judge in this case has found sufficient evidence that CACI was a direct conspirator, aided and abetted the actual torture of our clients, so enough evidence that a jury could find them liable, and that’s what we’re hoping will be the next step in front of a United States jury.

    CounterSpin: 'Has Our Country Just Gone Mad?'

    CounterSpin (5/27/16)

    JJ: CACI says, as I understand it, that since the United States would have immunity in this case, well, then, we were working for them, so we also have immunity. What do you have to say? I remember an interview with deeply missed CCR president Michael Ratner, explaining in 2004, that this idea that torture isn’t torture came in with US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and things went south at that point.

    But that’s CACI’s line, that since we’re acting as the government, we therefore have immunity against these charges?

    BA: Yeah, it’s interesting. The subtext of this is a really disturbing pattern among all private military contractors, which I think is seeking precisely this: Even though they act for profit, have no sovereign responsibilities, are in no way politically accountable, democratically accountable, they want to assume the same benefits as the government, as if CACI was a sovereign entity rather than a profit-making entity. That seems like a terrifying notion for me.

    And the subtext is, I think, ultimately, from a range of private military contractors, to get the law and the police to fulfill a kind of Erik Prince–ian vision, where private military contractors can go into war spaces and enjoy the same immunity as the United States government.

    And so far, the courts have plainly resisted that: You’re not allowed to assume the immunity of the United States government if you yourself have broken the law, even as a contractor.

    And the courts have rejected CACI’s argument, building on what John Yoo and Dick Cheney have said—that these are not legal questions, they’re political questions, that they’re out of the jurisdiction of the courts, what we choose to do with prisoners during wartime. And the court flatly rejected that, and said they can be accountable for torture, even if they were participating with the military.

    JJ: All right, then. Well, for many people, Abu Ghraib is a series of horrific photographs, and maybe the government’s efforts to suppress them, the media’s release of them, and then a kind of collective gasp—”shocking the conscience,” we heard.

    But then we got the sense, vaguely speaking, that since we’ve had our conscience shocked, we’ve addressed it, and so let’s all move on from that difficult time.

    But if no real deep-going, up-to-the-top accountability happens, aren’t we just setting ourselves up for the next, “Oh my gosh, that’s terrible” that’s carried out in our name?

    Baher Azmy

    Baher Azmy: “The problem with not holding high-level officials to account is these abuses get replicated and indeed escalated.” (image: Democracy Now!, 8/8/23)

    BA: I really quite agree, as someone who’s been heavily involved and early involved in the responses to the human rights crisis created by the Bush administration and the lawlessness there. I draw a connection between the kind of soft authoritarianism of the Bush administration, and the sanctioned lawlessness and demand for impunity and subverting US institutions and constraints on executive power, to the kind of hard authoritarianism that the Trump administration embraced.

    I mean, should we really be surprised by the Muslim ban that Trump escalated, given what the Bush administration tried and largely got away with? Should we be surprised with lawyers, like John Yoo in the torture context and John Eastman in the insurrection context, trying to sanction or legitimize, under law, subverting American institutions?

    I think precisely the problem with not holding high-level officials to account is these abuses get replicated and indeed escalated.

    JJ: Well, we’re going to end on that important note. We’ve been speaking with Baher Azmy, legal director at the Center for Constitutional Rights. You can track their work, including on this case, which is not closed but is going forward, at CCRJustice.org. Baher Azmy, thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin

    BA: Thank you very much.

     

    The post ‘CACI Aided and Abetted the Torture of Our Clients’ appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  • A law amendment in Iraq has proposed capital punishment for homosexual relationships. Campaigners have called it a “dangerous” escalation in the country where people already face frequent attacks and discrimination. However, life for queer Iraqis hasn’t always been this way. As with so many stains on worldwide human rights, the worsening homophobia and transphobia in Iraq can be traced back to the British empire.

    Iraq: debating the death penalty for LGBTQ+ people

    The amendment to a 1988 anti-prostitution law passed a first reading in parliament last week. It would enable courts to issue “the death penalty or life imprisonment” sentences for “homosexual relations”. This is according to a document seen by Agence France-Press (AFP). The amendment would also set a minimum seven-year prison term for “promoting homosexuality”.

    Currently, no existing laws explicitly punish homosexual relations. However, the state has prosecuted LGBTQ+ people for sodomy, or under vague morality and anti-prostitution clauses in Iraq’s penal code. This also comes at a time when the state and the media are also cracking-down on open discussion about LGBTQ+ issues.

    The national media and communications commission is considering banning Iraq-based publications from using the term “homosexuality”. Instead, it would advise media outlets to use the derogatory term “sexual deviance”. It also wants to ban the term “gender”.

    ‘Abnormal social phenomena’, apparently

    The law change appears to have broad support in the Islamist-majority assembly. Saud al-Saadi is member of Shiite Muslim party Huquq, the political wing of the powerful Iran-aligned Hezbollah Brigades and part of the ruling coalition. He said the amendment was “still under discussion and subject to exchanges of viewpoints”. Saadi said a second reading had yet to be scheduled, and argued that parliament aims to “fill a legal vacuum”.

    Lawmaker Sharif Suleiman of the Kurdistan Democratic Party said the proposed legislation reflects:

    our moral and human values and our fights against abnormal social phenomena… We need deterrent laws.

    ‘My life will end’

    A 2022 report by Human Rights Watch (HRW) and non-governmental organisation IraQueer found that people often target LGBTQ+ Iraqis with “kidnappings, rapes, torture and murders”. The state fails to punish the perpetrators. LGBTQ+ rights researcher at HRW Rasha Younes called the new proposed legislation as a “dangerous step”. She told AFP:

    That means that Iraqi individuals’ life and constant fear of being hunted down and killed by armed groups with impunity is now going to translate into the law itself.

    The Iraqi government (is) using the rights of LGBT people to distract the public from its lack of delivery.

    The surge in anti-LGBTQ sentiment has stoked further fear among members of the community. Iraqi gay man Abdallah told AFP:

    The situation has become too complicated because we are not protected by the authorities. If someone finds out that I’m gay and has a problem with me, they can send my name or photo to armed groups. My life will end.

    It is likely Iraqi politicians will pass the law – and it can be directly linked back to Britain’s colonial influence.

    Colonialism: bringing homophobia to Iraq and the Middle East

    Historically, Iraq and other countries in the Middle East were not as homophobic as they are today. Rather, the Ottoman empire – part of which would later become present-day Iraq – was relatively permissive of homosexuality, particularly if it was kept out of the public eye.

    Then, as History wrote:

    Britain seized Iraq from Ottoman Turkey during World War I and was granted a mandate by the League of Nations to govern the nation in 1920. A Hashemite monarchy was organized under British protection in 1921, and on October 3, 1932, the kingdom of Iraq was granted independence.

    But the damage was already done. The Economist explained that:

    In 1885 the British government introduced new penal codes that punished all homosexual behaviour. Of the more than 70 countries that criminalise homosexual acts today, over half are former British colonies. France introduced similar laws around the same time. After independence, only Jordan and Bahrain did away with such penalties.

    Britain forced its anti-LGBTQ+ laws onto Iraq (as it did most of its colonies). Negative societal attitudes and state criminalisation have remained ever since.

    Now, it’s LGBTQ+ Iraqis feeling the full effects of the legacy of British colonialism.

    Featured image via BBC World Service – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  •  

          CounterSpin230818.mp3

     

    Victim of US torture at Abu Ghraib

    Victim of US torture at Abu Ghraib, 2003

    This week on CounterSpin: For corporate news media, every mention of the Iraq War is a chance to fuzz up or rewrite history a little more. This year, the New York Times honored the war’s anniversary with a friendly piece about how George W. Bush “doesn’t second guess himself on Iraq,” despite pesky people mentioning things like the torture of innocent prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison.

    Federal Judge Leonie Brinkema has just refused to dismiss a long standing case brought against Abu Ghraib torturers for hire, the company known as CACI.  Unlike elite media’s misty memories, the case is a real-world, stubborn indication that what happened happened and those responsible have yet to be called to account. We can call the case, abstractly, “anti-torture” or “anti-war machine,” as though it were a litmus test on those things; but we can’t forget that it’s pro–Suhail al-Shimari, pro–Salah al-Ejaili,   pro– all the other human beings horrifically abused in that prison in our name.  We get an update on the still-ongoing case—despite some 18 attempts to dismiss it—from Baher Azmy, legal director at the Center for Constitutional Rights.

          CounterSpin230818Azmy.mp3

     

    Gizmodo: CNET Deletes Thousands of Old Articles to Game Google Search

    Gizmodo (8/9/23)

    Also on the show: The internet? Am i right? Thomas Germain is senior reporter at Gizmodo; he fills us in on some new developments in the online world most of us, like it or not, live in and rely on. Developments to do with ads, ads and still more ads, and also with the disappearing and potential disappearing of decades of archived information and reporting.

          CounterSpin230818Germain.mp3

    The post Baher Azmy on Abu Ghraib Torture Lawsuit, Thomas Germain on Online History Destruction appeared first on FAIR.

  • In the first part of this paper, Authoritarian Sadism in U.S. “Foreign Policy” (Part 1), Dissident Voice, July 25, 2023, I introduced some psychoanalytic concepts and explained their application in revealing the latent motivations of high-ranking policy-makers in recent U.S. presidential administrations.  This approach was long ago studied by the eminent political scientist Harold Lasswell, who concluded that a political leader’s manifest “policies” are often a rationalization of his unresolved psychological conflicts. 1

    I have already examined, in relation to sadistic motivations, the personality of President Barack Obama (see: “Obama: ‘I’m Really Good at Killing People’,” Dissident Voice, January 2, 2022.  Psychiatrist Justin Frank, M.D. also wrote a detailed psychoanalytic study entitled Obama on the Couch (2011), which is full of subtle and well-stated psychoanalytic insights, especially regarding Obama’s childhood.  Still, psychoanalyst Justin Frank unconvincingly concluded that Obama was “generally in excellent mental health.”2

    To my mind, his earlier book Bush on the Couch (2004), which I will refer to here, was unflinchingly probing and perspicacious, a superb tour-de-force in the field of psycho-political studies of presidential personalities and their often horrifically destructive “policies.”  (Parenthetically, ex-President Bush has frequently made revealing Freudian slips during recent speaking engagements.)  So, having already examined the case of Madeleine Albright, let us now examine the authoritarian sadism exhibited by President George W. Bush, a war criminal now almost entirely rehabilitated by the craven, mainstream media.

    Case-Study no. 2:  George W. Bush

    Former President George W. Bush’s dreadful legacy of destruction rivals that of other modern authoritarian rulers who recklessly trampled human rights and laid waste to the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.  But were his injurious policies–from willfully wrecking an entire nation (Iraq), to authorizing illegal torture (Guantanamo and the CIA’s notorious black-sites), to refusing to renew the Clinton-era ban on assault weapons–simply the result of his benighted, right-wing ideology?  Or, was this ideology in itself simply politicized cruelty: mass-murdering a purported “enemy” populace abroad while slashing social programs and criminalizing the poor domestically?  Describing the emotional tenor of Nazism, journalist Ron Rosenbaum brilliantly noted that “an irrational hatred that can assume the guise, the mantle, of an ideological antipathy but which is primitive in the sense of being prior to ideology–its source rather than its product.” 3

    In Dr. Frank’s Bush on the Couch, I found the chapter entitled “The Smirk” lucidly revealing as to Bush’s sadistic personality.  Frank offered abundant examples of Bush’s sadism and destructiveness, from his childhood pastime of blowing up frogs with firecrackers to his “branding” of fraternity pledges with a red-hot coat hanger–to his subsequent rubber-stamping of the execution, while governor of Texas, of a record number of death-row inmates (many never given adequate counsel for a fair trial).  Ultimately, Dr. Frank concluded, “The sadism that motivated the war [was] evident in Bush’s lack of a plan for postwar Iraq: the invasion was an end in itself.” 4

    As to my usage of a concept of compensatory narcissism–often apparent in authoritarian “power-over” and grandiosity–Dr. Frank favored instead a blanket diagnosis of Bush as megalomaniacal.  Unlike Dr. Frank, who chose not to utilize the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, I have found the section in the “DSM” on Personality Disorders particularly useful (4th edition, 1994). Some fifty years ago, Freudian psychiatrists with substantial clinical experience of narcissistic and sociopathic personalities spent years seeking further clarification and consensus regarding the clinical (and actual) reality of such personality syndromes.  Finally, a typology (subject to revision) emerged, and such can be found in the aforementioned DSM 4th edition.  I might add that the very concept of “personality disorders” (especially, narcissistic, sociopathic, etc.) was originally derived from the early psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich’s classic Character Analysis (1933), wherein he discussed his clinical cases of pathological character-structures. 5

    Unfortunately, in subsequently expanded editions over the past thirty years, the APA–against the strong protest of the minority of psychoanalytic psychiatrists–has added innumerable dubious and stigmatizing “conduct disorders” (and such) to the Manual (probably for commercial motives and insurance claims).  The few psychoanalysts who have remained members of today’s APA have been marginalized and largely ignored by the reigning Big Pharma bio-psychiatrists.  (Interestingly, when psychoanalysts still exercised significant influence in the APA, the diagnostic “Sadistic Personality Disorder” was carefully considered and briefly included in the DSM, only to be dropped later.)

    Returning to our evaluation of Bush, compensatory narcissistic power-displays, more popularly known as “protest masculinity,” were almost constantly on exhibit in his crude threats and belligerent rhetoric as well as in his flamboyant swaggering in a flight-suit costume on board the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln in May 2003 (“Mission Accomplished”?).  Again, fifty years ago many publicly respected psychoanalysts such as Erich Fromm might have pointed to childhood origins: a dominant and violently punitive mother (slapping and/or neglect), and a remote, often-absent father.  But such observations are now routinely derided, with the alternative (and potentially racist) claim that psychopathic behavior in adulthood is primarily genetic in origin.

    In the 1994 DSM, one finds that youthful cruelty to animals as well as substance abuse–both unquestionably exhibited by Bush–are predisposing factors to a possible diagnosis of “sociopathy” (then also known as “antisocial personality disorder”). As president, Bush, of course, often displayed the roguish charm of the con-artist, as he gratuitously lied or invented “facts,” blithely broke dozens of laws and shredded treaties, and ordered the illegal torture of hundreds of victims, conveniently occurring in locales where U.S. laws prohibiting torture had no jurisdiction.

    According to the DSM (and again, I emphasize, the 1994 4th edition), in order to be diagnosed as “sociopathic,” an individual must exhibit at least three of the following: “failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors… deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying… impulsivity or failure to plan ahead… irritability and aggressiveness… reckless disregard for the safety of self or others… consistent irresponsibility…[and] lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.”  This diagnostic, which has high co-morbidity with a history of alcoholism (admitted by Bush), is ultimately confirmed in cases where some evidence exists of childhood delinquency (such as bullying and cruelty toward animals).

    Moving on to the DSM’s 1994 criteria for narcissistic disorder, at least five of the following must apply to justify the diagnosis: “a grandiose sense of self-importance… fantasies of unlimited success, power… believes that he or she is ‘special’ and unique…has a sense of entitlement… is interpersonally exploitative… lacks empathy… is often envious of others… [and] shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.”   Many highly successful individuals,” the DSM entry concluded (with unintended irony?), “display personality traits that might be considered narcissistic.” 6

    An eminent psychoanalyst, known for his careful study of personality disorders, concluded twenty years ago that the narcissistic syndrome “overlaps considerably with the interpersonal style of anti-social personality–so much so that narcissistic individuals are sometimes considered ‘white-collar’ psychopaths… The distinction [between the two personality diagnostics] is then unclear.” 7 It is thus plausible to consider “narcissism” and “sociopathy” as points on a continuum, with fusion of traits a not unlikely outcome (especially in powerful political figures).  I postulated as much over ten years ago in my Dissident Voice article “Sociopathic Narcissism: a Political Syndrome”, October 26, 2012.  Thus, in the year or so following Trump’s “election” as president, I was not surprised to see numerous panic-stricken psychiatrists and political analysts suddenly warn the public of the “sociopathic narcissist” in the White House.

    But can sociopathic narcissism ultimately be equated with authoritarian sadism?  According to Dr. Frank, President Bush became a sadistic role-model, thus “normalizing” the unleashing of bullying, aggressive behavior in everyday socio-political contexts.  Bush’s desire to attack Iraq and its people, under the flimsiest of pretexts, exhibited his impatiently awaited delight in cruelty: the anticipated satisfactions of not only crushing Saddam Hussein (dominating him into submission or, preferably, torturing and killing him).  To this sociopathic narcissist, one may even speculate that exercising the power to kill hundreds of thousands of vulnerable, powerless Iraqi people–without impunity– offered the ultimate, grandiose opportunity for sadistic satisfaction.

    Similarly, the power-hungry, highly narcissistic Madeleine Albright (discussed in the preceding Part 1) aggressively campaigned for, and attained, the position of Secretary of State.  Ruthless and domineering, the “entitled” Albright was impatient to crush and dominate into submission defiant opponents such as Saddam and Milosevic.  But what of the helpless, ordinary citizens of these nations (and not forgetting Rwanda); i.e., hundreds of thousands including small children, who are by nature weak and defenseless)?  They were all victims for the power-driven, authoritarian sadist. 8

    END NOTES

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Freudian depth-psychology remains an under-utilized tool in interpreting motivation and personality of recent American “leaders”  who have chosen to deploy massively destructive military force on large civilian populations in places like Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan.  A president may deny (or repress) his own destructive hostility, projecting it onto “the other.”  Splitting-and-projection readily enables a clear definition of an “enemy” nation, whose population as a whole may have to endure “collateral damage.”  As psychoanalyst Vamik Volkan has elucidated, in extreme situations (such as the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks), both “leaders” and “followers” may regress to such splitting mechanisms: “we” are all-good, blameless–and they, as one war president claimed, maliciously “hate our freedom.”  Such group-regression, Volkan noted, occurs when the citizenry of a nation abandon mature, inductive rationality and succumb to such dangerously over-simplified, defensive emotional states. 1

    Here I am focusing on the urge for, and exercise of, “power-over” as a manifestation of compensatory narcissism (a term I prefer, in this essay, to Volkan’s “reparative narcissism”).  As to sadism, psychoanalyst Erich Fromm perceptively described the “dominance-submission” psychology of the authoritarian personality: “the world is composed of people with power and those without it.  The very sight of a powerless person makes him want to attack, dominate, and humiliate him.” 2 Those individuals who single-mindedly attain such “power-over” may then successfully compensate for the childhood trauma of feeling insecure, under-valued or humiliated.3  Concurrently, the unconscious desire for revenge may be satisfied through displacement onto peoples and nations easily declared to be imminent threats to national security.  (And one should not underestimate the intrinsically pleasurable “power-thrill” involved.)

    Case-Study No. 1:  Madeleine Albright

    Born in Czechoslovakia the year before British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s infamous, unsuccessful appeasement of Hitler at the Munich Conference, Madeleine Albright (nee Marie Korbelova, 1937-1922) experienced childhood as a refugee.  Her father Josef Korbel held a diplomatic post there, but Hitler’s invasion of Czechoslovakia soon forced the family to flee the country.  The family sought safety in London, only to find themselves under siege by the Luftwaffe’s bombing Blitz (1941).  (In her memoir Prague Winter, Albright passes lightly over the frequent but unpredictable emergency sirens warning of imminent bombs, and alerting Londoners to immediately drop everything and rush for safety down into the Underground Tube.)  In 1948, her father was appointed Czechoslovakian ambassador to Yugoslavia, but with that nation’s takeover by a Communist regime, the family was yet again forced to flee.

    Thus, Albright experienced a childhood of bewildering war dangers, constant flights from one safe haven to another, and the inevitable insecurities about vulnerability, abandonment, homelessness.  (Of course, no such feelings are acknowledged in her memoir.)  One traumatic lesson no doubt learned was that power rules the world, and those without it can become victims.  Such a lesson must have also been detected in the decision of her Jewish parents to raise her as a Catholic–a sobering fact that Albright claimed she only first learned when a journalist broke the story in 1997. 4 (In her childhood, was she really unaware of the strange absence of contact with any extended family members–who had been ”disappeared” into concentration camps?).

    Much later, living as a U.S citizen, and marrying journalist Joseph  Albright–who later divorced her–she eventually, like her father, chose a career in diplomacy, earning a Columbia Ph.D. in international relations under Zbigniew Brzezinski (soon to become National Security Advisor for Democratic President Jimmy Carter).  This connection would pave the way for this ambitious, aggressive woman who, by the time of the first Clinton Administration, was appointed as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

    Previously, under the previous Bush (Sr.) administration, a propaganda-fueled Gulf War (1991) had left Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in ruins, with a destroyed military and hundreds of thousands of casualties.  Even so, Saddam remained in power, and U.S.-backed, draconian UN sanctions were imposed for many years to follow, producing widespread hunger, disease and suffering.  U.S. bombing during that brief war targeted and destroyed water treatment plants and other critical infrastructure, yet the sanctions prohibited the importation of chlorine as well as antibiotics and most foodstuffs.  Such cruel sanctions, as we know, resulted in hundreds of thousands of children’s deaths.5

    Sitting as U.S. Ambassador to the UN Security Council (1993-1996), Albright aggressively shaped the Clinton policy: extreme pressure on the other members of the Council to continue the sanctions.  But later, as her tenure at the UN was coming to an end, she inadvertently exposed her authoritarian-sadistic motivations to millions, in her now-infamous TV interview on Sixty Minutes (May 12, 1996).  When interviewer Lesley Stahl, pointing out that a UNICEF Study had recently estimated that some 500,000 Iraqi children were now dead because of these U.S.-backed sanctions, Albright–as viewers saw with astonishment–coldly replied that on balance, it was ”worth it.”6

    As is well-known, the draconian sanctions continued.  A few months later, now U.S. Secretary of State, Albright once more displayed her latent, sadistic-narcissistic motivation: “We do not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted” (March 26, 1997).7

    It is beyond the scope of the present article to examine her refusal, when on the UN Security Council (1994), to respond to UN General Romeo Dallaire’s urgent request for a few thousand peace-keeper troops to stop the genocide in Rwanda.8

    As to Serbia’s 1990s involvement in wars in Bosnia and Kosovo, diplomat Albright had little interest in negotiation or humanitarian initiatives. In a seeming obsession with the rise of Hitler at the time she was born, she repeatedly declared that “my mind-set is Munich.” 9 The U.S. would not tolerate the expansionist plans allegedly masterminded and directed by Milosevic, president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (i.e., Serbia).  She initially tried to pressure Gen. Colin Powell for immediate U.S. military action, including heavy bombing: extreme demands which he claimed, in his own self-promoting book, almost caused him to have “an aneurysm.” 10. Nonetheless, during the later Kosovo conflict (spring 1999), Albright revealed herself once more as an eager warmaker (rather than “diplomat”).  She bullied the 19 member-nations of NATO as junior partners in a 1000-plane daily bombing campaign over Serbia that was prolonged for an absolutely devastating 90 days.11

    In her retirement, Albright wrote the usual self-justifying memoirs.  Her unwavering fixation on strength and power–she even wrote proudly that she could leg-press 400 pounds!–was reflected in the very title of one of her books: The Mighty and the Almighty (2006).

    ENDNOTES

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • This June, the Swiss journalist Maurine Mercier found several United States citizens fighting in Ukraine under the guise of humanitarian work. “All of them are veterans, former soldiers who fought in all the recent American wars: the Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan,” she reports. Many suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, carrying the embodied ghosts of past conflicts and deep psychic wounds to…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • By Blessen Tom, RNZ News journalist

    Fifteen artists have been selected as the inaugural beneficiaries of NZ On Air’s New Music Pan-Asian funding.

    The initiative, the first of its kind, aims to support the Asian music community in New Zealand.

    The fund was established due to a lack of equitable representation of Asian musicians in the country’s music sector, says Teresa Patterson, head of music at NZ On Air.

    “Our Music Diversity Report clearly showed the under-representation of Pan-Asian New Zealand musicians in the Aotearoa music sector,” she said.

    “This is reflected in the number of funding applications we received for this focus round.”

    The funding provides musicians with up to $10,000 for recording, mixing and mastering a single, some of which can be set aside for the promotion and creation of visual content to accompany the song’s release.

    “We received 107 applications for 15 grants, which is outstanding,” Patterson said.

    ‘Wonderful range’
    “The range of genre, gender and ethnicity among the applicants was wonderful. We received applications from artists who identify as Chinese, Indian, Filipino, South Korean, Japanese, Indonesian, Sri Lankan, Malaysian, Thai and Iraqi.

    “The genres varied from alternative/indie and pop to hip-hop/RnB, dance/electro and folk/country.”

    Phoebe Rings members Crystal Choi, Simeon Kavanagh-Vincent, Benjamin Locke and Alex Freer.
    Phoebe Rings members Crystal Choi, Simeon Kavanagh-Vincent, Benjamin Locke and Alex Freer. Image: Phoebe Rings/RNZ News

    Six of the 15 songs that secured funding are bilingual, featuring Asian languages such as Cantonese, Korean, Japanese, Malay and Punjabi.

    Patterson believed this variety would “really help to reflect the many voices of Aotearoa New Zealand” and add to the vibrant cultural music mix experienced by local audiences.

    Swap Gomez, a drummer, visual director and academic lecturer, was one of the panel members responsible for selecting the musicians for the funding. He emphasised the challenges faced by Asian musicians in New Zealand.

    “What was awesome to see was so many Pan-Asian artists applying; artists we had never heard of coming out of the woodwork now that a space has been created to celebrate their work,” Gomez said.

    “This is the time we can celebrate those Pan-Asian artists who have previously felt overlooked by the wider industry.

    “Now there is an environment and sector where they can feel appreciated for their success in music. As a multicultural industry, developing initiatives such as this one is more crucial than ever.”

    NZ On Air has announced that funding opportunities for Asian musicians will continue in the next financial year.

    “The response we have had to this inaugural NZ On Air New Music Pan-Asian focus funding round has been phenomenal,” Patterson said.

    “It tells us that there is a real need, so NZ On Air is excited to confirm that it will return in the new financial year.”

    The full NZ On Air’s Pan-Asian New Music recipient list:

    • Amol; cool asf
    • Charlotte Avery; just before you go
    • Crystal Chen; love letter
    • hanbee; deeper
    • Hans.; Porcelain
    • Hugo Chan; bite
    • Julius Black; After You
    • LA FELIX; Waiting
    • Lauren Gin; Don’t Stop
    • Memory Foam; Moon Power
    • Phoebe Rings; 아스라이
    • RESHMA; Kuih Lapis (Layer Cake)
    • tei.; sabre
    • Terrible Sons; Thank You, Thank You
    • Valere; Lily’s March

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

  • Former Reuters journalist Dean Yates’ career has taken him around the world and up-close-and-personal with some of the century’s worst tragedies and atrocities. From the 2002 Bali bombings and the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, to the frontlines of war in Lebanon and Iraq—Yates’ experiences have taken a deeply personal toll. The killing of two Iraqi journalist colleagues by a US Apache gunship finally pushed him over the edge. After years of dealing with PTSD, substance abuse, and psychiatric hospitalization, Yates has written a new memoir about his journey, Line in the SandDean Yates joins The Chris Hedges Report to discuss his new book, his career, and his healing journey.

    Studio: David Hebden, Adam Coley, Cameron Granadino
    Post-Production: Adam Coley


    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Speaker 1:

    (Singing).

    Chris Hedges:

    Dean Yates was a reporter for Reuters who led teams that covered the 2002 Bali bombings and the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami in Indonesia. He served as Deputy Bureau Chief for Israel and Palestine in 2006 during the Lebanon war, and was the Reuters Bureau chief in Iraq, overseeing a staff of 100 people from 2007 to 2008. It was during his time in Iraq that a US Apache gunship gunned down two Reuters journalists in Baghdad. On July 12th, 2007. WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange published footage of the attack in 2010 known as the Collateral Murder Video. Yates struggled in the aftermath with severe PTSD, was consumed by guilt over the killing of his two Iraqi colleagues. His trauma turned out to be a time bomb, leading to substance abuse, rage, numbness, and pushing him up to the edge of suicide. He was hospitalized three times in a psychiatric ward.

    He, like many former war correspondence, felt abandoned by his news organization. He was unable to recapture the camaraderie and sense of purpose, even meaning that comes with war reporting. The toxicity of his trauma, which took a heavy toll on his wife and children, became the new war he had to fight. Yates has written a brutally honest memoir about his battle, Line in the Sand, a Journalist Memoir of War, Trauma and Healing. He joins me to discuss the trauma of war reporting, its crippling consequences and the struggle to heal and find peace. So as you know, I’m a huge admirer of this book for its unflinching honesty.

    I want to ask having … and I think just to go back, we should recap because a lot of people don’t remember the Bali bombings. I think there’s a moment in the book where you’re counting over 200 bodies, counting them, right?

    Dean Yates:

    That was in the Boxing Day tsunami-

    Chris Hedges:

    That was in the Boxing Day. I did the same, and a way it becomes a kind of … it gives you something to do. It creates a distance between you and the carnage, but I remember also, doing exactly what you did. Give us just a brief kind of summary of the kind of traumatic events that you had to cover as a reporter.

    Dean Yates:

    Yeah. I think the Bali bombings, Chris was … it was one of those seminal events, right? So, 9/11 had happened. The world had been shocked and horrified by 9/11, those attacks. So the war on terror had begun and the war in Afghanistan had begun. Then a year later, I’m sitting in Jakarta and I get this phone call from our stringer in Bali who said, there’s been these explosions in Kuta Beach. Of course everyone knows Bali. It’s this tourist paradise, one of the holiday islands of the world. I said, what can you see? And he said, “Headless bodies and cars on fire.” And I knew something terrible had happened, but I just didn’t know how bad it would be. Of course, the final death toll was 202 people dead, including 88 Australians. This was the worst attack for my country, Australia, outside wartime.

    It was very quickly identified that the attackers were an offshoot, a Southeast Asian terrorist group called Jemaah Islamiyah, which was affiliated with Al-Qaeda. I went down there the following morning, I was on the first flight and the whole area had been obliterated. Thousand kilograms of explosives in a minivan just exploded outside this nightclub, which was full of young holiday makers. This is what I think … this is why this attack reverberated around the world because it was ordinary people, young people having fun, going to the beach and on holiday. It was a brutal evil attack, and that that was the beginning of what we saw then, during those years of these wave of terrorist attacks around the world, Spain, London, France, elsewhere. It was the beginning after 9/11 of that decade long, if you like, wave of terrorism,

    Chris Hedges:

    And talk about what you saw when you got there.

    Dean Yates:

    Yeah, I get to the bomb site and it was this big crater in the ground and Indonesia being Indonesia, there was no security there. There was no tape around the site. I actually walked over the bomb site looking just to see what I could see. There was still some bit of smoke coming out of the debris. My foot bumped a bit of debris and I actually dislodged and there was a shown of hand there, and I nearly stepped on it, and the whole thing was just … I actually could feel evil there, and I was a real methodical news agency journalist. I just did one story, moved onto the next, but I could actually feel evil there. It’s the first time and the only time I’ve ever felt that. Then I went to the hospital because this is where all the survivors were, their families.

    All the bodies had been taken to the main hospital in Bali. When I got to that hospital, I was about to go in and then a burned victim was brought past me, young man, face looking up, badly burnt face. And I froze, there was something about that moment where I just thought, I can’t go into that hospital. I was really confused about my role. This was the biggest story I’d ever covered, and we’re talking 20, 21 years ago now. I’d never been trained for this sort of thing. I’d never been … no one had taught me, how do you go into a hospital ward, full of grieving people who’ve just lost loved ones in a horrific attack? And what do you even say to these people? Well, people think I’m a … Well, they think I’m a voyeur? I just didn’t have the emotional skills to deal with that.

    And so I actually, didn’t even go into the hospital. I couldn’t do my job. And I felt such shame about that for nearly 15 years. I didn’t even tell my wife for 15 years because I wasn’t able to do my job, and it was only years later that I was actually through lots of therapy. Bali really affected me. I felt very … it really traumatized me. It was only years later that through a lot of therapy, I was able to work out with my psychologist that I just didn’t have … I didn’t have the emotional skills to go into that hospital ward. I didn’t know how I could deal with the distress inside, and I was very tired. I’d been up all night and exhausted, and the shame I felt was that I didn’t do my job. I didn’t give those people a chance to tell their story. You and I both know working in conflict zones, working in disaster zones, a lot of people want to tell their story.

    They want the world to know. I didn’t give them a chance to do that. That was the shame I felt but then 20 years later, all this therapy, I was able to show myself compassion for that younger reporter who just didn’t know how to respond to that situation, and that helped me deal with all those emotions.

    Chris Hedges:

    And then quickly the tsunami and then Iraq. I should point out you were 700 days in Iraq, and we were talking about before we went on the air that although I probably have been in more combat than you have, I went in and out of combat. So there were periods where I was relatively safe or certainly didn’t feel the fear or the terror. When I was in Sarajevo, which was being shelled all of the time, it was constant fear, which we would pull out after three weeks because you don’t sleep. I’m really curious about those 700 days, but just talk briefly about the tsunami and then Iraq and then we’ll go into the effects.

    Dean Yates:

    Yeah, the tsunami was just … for some of us who covered the tsunami, we actually consider that the big story of our generation, actually. I mean, this was a natural disaster, unprecedented in modern times. In Aceh … Indonesia’s Aceh, 166,000 people killed in 20 minutes. The destruction, the death. I saw thousands of dead bodies. I walked into a mosque, the day I got there. I walked into a mosque, the main mosque in Banda Aceh, the Baiturrahman Grand Mosque. There were just bodies lined up in this mosque, bloated. I just thought, I’ve got to count these bodies. It was sort of like … there was a journalistic part of it, right? I write my story, I want to count how many bodies are there, but it was sort of like someone had to do it.

    It was paying them respect by doing so, and I counted 156 bodies in this mosque, but it was just horrific, but what I found covering the Boxing Day tsunami was unlike Bali where I froze at that hospital, I just had this energy and this passion to cover that story, to report the hell out of that story. It was one of those events where it happened on Boxing Day, and those news images and the pictures that came out galvanized the global community in contributing something like 14, 15 billion dollars in aid for the tsunami victims all around the Indian Ocean. It was an incredible effort and it was partly due to that sort of media coverage, and the thing about the coverage for me personally, was that while the death toll was horrific and while the … and I spent a month up there and I went back six months later and 12 months later. Boxing Day tsunami didn’t traumatize me as much.

    And I think it was because I was able to work … I was really proud of the work I did, and I was really proud of the work that Reuters, my employer put into that story, through the kitchen sink at it. We threw so many people at that story. So I felt that week that I did the story justice and our organization did the story justice, I think that means a lot to journalists, that if you feel you are bearing witness, if you feel you are doing your job properly, I think that actually is a protective measure when it comes to trauma. I mean, it’s different, a manmade atrocity versus a natural disaster. They are different, but they’re still trauma. For me, I just felt that I’d been able to do my job really well and that protected me later when the trauma came.

    Chris Hedges:

    And let’s talk just briefly about Iraq.

    Dean Yates:

    And the thing with Iraq was just the fear. Again, it was something that I didn’t realize until literally 18, 19 years later, that fear of getting kidnapped had been trapped in my body, and this was something that every single journalist was frightened about, obviously in Baghdad, was getting kidnapped because if you got kidnapped, you were likely going to get killed. There was … the way Al-Qaeda was operating and some of those other militant groups, they weren’t taking prisoners. You’re dead, and that fear manifested itself in my nightmares. In my nightmares, the most common nightmare I would have was of being chased through the streets by insurgents in Baghdad. I could see the streets of Baghdad, I could see the shopkeepers.

    And some colleagues were able to grow their beards and look Arab, I could never do that. I always looked like a Westerner and in these nightmares, I’d be running through the streets, gunman chasing me, and I wouldn’t know how to get back to the office. My feet actually moved in the bed. It was like I was … and my feet were scratching the wooden frame of our bed and my wife, Mary, we’d wake up the next morning and she’d say, “You were running in your sleep again last night.” I was literally running to try and get away from these people. Sometimes I’d scream out because they’d caught me. It was just … the nightmares were terrible, so that fear, I thought was … when I look back at that now, and I look back and it’s sort of interesting, and it’s an interesting element to the trauma, was that it’s sometimes things that don’t actually happen to you can be traumatic.

    We often think something must happen to someone, they get shot at or they get blown up or they get attacked, but for me, it was something that didn’t happen, but that could have happened, and that what was I found very … ultimately was a big factor in my PTSD.

    Chris Hedges:

    Well, I had that story, well, I still to this day have dreams of being shelled and although I spent far more time covering the war in El Salvador, five years where I was in a lot of combat and I wasn’t ever hit by a shell, but it’s exactly the same thing where it’s the fear and living with that fear 24 hours a day, obviously ingrained itself so deeply within my psyche. Let’s just talk briefly about the collateral murder video, what happened, and then I want to get into your own struggle.

    Dean Yates:

    Yeah, so obviously with Iraq and Baghdad, for me, the biggest traumatic event was the deaths of my staff. Namir Noor Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh, the Reuters photographer and driver who were killed on July 12th, 2007 by a US Apache gunship call sign, Crazy Horse 18. I was in the newsroom that day, and out of the blue, there amongst a group of men, shot dead by this gunship, and that for me was … it was the start of, I guess a slow burn chain reaction, traumatic event that eventually brought me to the brink of suicide nearly 10 years later because of all sorts of reasons. I failed to protect my staff. When Julian Assange released the collateral murder tape, I didn’t speak up. I was literally frozen in shock when that tape came out and I couldn’t speak. The fact that I didn’t speak up meant that Reuters allowed the US military to get away with its deceitful narrative around what happened.

    In other words, Reuters allowed the US military to lie about the events of that attack and didn’t challenge it. Then, there was just all … and so that narrative was allowed to continue. So, that to me was a lack of courage on my part, a lack of moral courage. All of that came together 10 years later. And that guilt and that shame from that brought me to the brink of suicide until my wife, Mary intervened and said, “You need to get help. You need to go to a psych ward.”

    Chris Hedges:

    I want to ask, just from my own experience, I did war for 20 years. My last war I covered was Kosovo. I felt myself … I don’t know that I had a breakdown, but I felt myself breaking down in that war. I did my job, but it was much harder than any other conflict that I covered, and I wondered if you had a kind of final period when you were covering, I assume in Iraq, where you felt the same kind of thing.

    Dean Yates:

    For me, that breakdown was actually a couple of days after Namir and Saeed were killed. I was told that the Iraqi staff felt that I wasn’t being tough enough on the US military in our reporting, the Iraqi staff basically wanted me to report in our stories that Namir and Saeed had been killed in cold blood. I just couldn’t report that because we didn’t know exactly what had happened and you know what it was like in these war zones. Information is so sketchy. I hadn’t seen anything from the tape by that stage. I could only report what we knew, but it was like the Iraqi staff were calling me gutless. And that ripped my heart apart, and I just thought, I can’t do this and I wept, and my young deputy from Lebanon who told me this, I just said to her, “I can’t do this. I need to resign. I wanted to resign my post. I wanted to leave Baghdad.”

    She knew that if I did that, it would break me, and she urged me to stay on. And I have to probably thank her for saving my career at that time because I think if I had resigned I would’ve never gotten another post again, because Reuters was pretty tough, like all news organizations and if I’d have bailed, that would’ve been probably the end for me. I managed to keep going after that event, and I don’t know, but it all caught up with me, Chris, in the end,

    Chris Hedges:

    Let’s talk about how it caught up with you.

    Dean Yates:

    Yeah, so funnily enough, it caught up with me in this beautiful island where I live now of Tasmania, this peaceful, pristine little part of the world where we eventually-

    Chris Hedges:

    I just want to interrupt. There are a lot of ghosts in Tasmania. There was a genocide before you got there.

    Dean Yates:

    You also got the Tasmanian … yeah, that’s right. There are a lot of ghosts. It’s been a brutal place over many years. So my wife, Mary comes from Tasmania, and so we decided to move here after … I’ve been on the road for 20 years for Reuters, and I was pretty tired and decided let’s go back to Tasmania. And Reuters said that I could work as a subeditor wherever I went, as long as I had a broadband connection. So we relocated here in 2013, and it wasn’t long before the symptoms started to emerge of PTSD, the noise sensitivity, the agitation, the anxiety, the depression, isolating myself, that sort of stuff.

    Chris Hedges:

    I just want to interrupt. I just want to ask why you thought … it happened after you left. I didn’t have nightmares in war zones. I would have them the moment I left. And the other point that you bring up in the book that I liked, you talk about trauma. You may be quoting somebody, but you’re talking about trauma, like all these items packed in a cupboard. And then every once in a while they’ll fall out. You can’t control it. I mean, I feel that I keep them packed, I try and keep them all packed in there. I thought that was an incredible analogy. So why did the trauma hit you after you left, and how did those things fall out of the cupboard?

    Dean Yates:

    Yeah, yeah. No, absolutely. So for me, and I think it’s the same for a lot of people, when you’re working in intense places, there’s no room in your head for a lot of that trauma to come out right. You’ve just got so much on your mind. You’ve got so much to do. You’re focused. You’ve got your job to do. When I left Asia and the Middle East and came back to Tasmania, my brain had space to start ruminating, and when you’re in this beautiful environment, you start to think about the past, it’s just inevitable. It’s going to happen. So, that allowed room for the memories to start coming back in. Before, there’s just no time for those memories to come back. It’s easy to keep memories down when you’ve got so much else to do and so much here and now to focus on with your work.

    That’s why some people who have been traumatized can keep going until they’re old. And then when they stop work, bang, the trauma really hits them. So for me, being here in Tasmania, I was still working, but I wasn’t working as hard. I wasn’t working those same hours. That’s when all this stuff started to accumulate. And I would literally be sitting in my home office trying to work on stories, edit stories and I was editing things like … this is the thing, right? Editing stories, MH 17, terrorist attacks, other sorts of events that were triggering as well, reminders of what I’d covered in the past. And I would get so stressed out, I would bang my fists on the table, I would yell, I would scream, and it would be like I was sitting back in my office in Baghdad. I would be so stressed that I’d be physically transported back.

    So eventually, after many years of pleading, my wife Mary got me to get help because I was horrible at home. I’m terrible to live with. And I was very quickly diagnosed with PTSD, and I was given time off work, but as I went … and this was the thing, this was the critical thing, as soon as I took sick leave, the nightmare started, within days of me taking sick leave and stopping work, that’s when the nightmare started, and I think that was because I wasn’t working then. My head wasn’t filled with news planning calls wasn’t filled with what stories am I editing who I got to discuss that story with no emails to answer. My head’s got nothing in it, in come the nightmares, the flashbacks became very intense at that time as well. So rather than get better on sick leave, I went downhill.

    Chris Hedges:

    I want to just ask a quick question. When you cover war, you’re getting all sorts of adrenaline rushes almost constantly. I’m just curious whether you think that that was … those soldiers call it a combat high? It’s very real. I’m just wondering if those adrenaline rushes ward it off in your idea, in your thoughts, trauma and then, I just want you … because we only have about seven minutes left, I want you to talk about the road to recovery, what it is you had to do.

    Dean Yates:

    Yeah, no, I think those adrenaline rushes do ward off the trauma. Absolutely. I think the problem is if you keep looking for those adrenaline rushes, you’re going to have to confront at some stage in your life, you can’t keep putting it off-

    Chris Hedges:

    Well, the problem is you leave and you keep looking for it. I mean, the title of your book is A Journalist, Memoir of War Trauma, Infidelity and Healing. I mean, they can read that chapter.

    Dean Yates:

    You can’t keep putting this stuff off, right? You will have to confront the trauma at some stage. You can keep trying to delay it, but it will catch up with you, I guarantee it. It’s just a matter of when, and the longer you leave it, the harder it is and the longer it’s going to take too to get to that recovery. That whole thing about the linen cupboard and the items stacked in the cupboard, the first day I went to the psych ward, this was just … and I loved this imagery. The first time I went to this psych ward in Melbourne, a lot of coppers, a lot of veteran specialist PTSD facility. I was given this notebook, this notebook, and it had this piece of paper, and I’ve still got it on my notice board up here, treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder, the linen covered metaphor.

    On one side, you’ve got this messy cupboard with clothes falling out on the other is a very neat cupboard. The idea is that messy cupboard is all your traumatic memories, right? And you open that cupboard and they all start tumbling out. The idea of therapy is to process those memories, deal with them, work through them, and then you fold them up and uniquely stack them away in the tidy side of the cupboard so that if you want to access them, you just open the cupboard and you can pull them out if you want to, and you can put them in. They don’t just tumble out if you happen to bump the cupboard accidentally or brush past it. That is one of the biggest problems with PTSD is that people have no control over their memories. Those memories can just come flooding back at any time.

    The memories are unprocessed. Whereas once you’ve done the therapy and you’ve gone through it, you’re able to … those memories are properly filed. They’re stored away in that linen cupboard.

    Chris Hedges:

    Do you ever reach a point where all of the memories jumbled in the one cupboard are folded and processed? I mean, isn’t it to a certain extent, always with you that trauma or not?

    Dean Yates:

    Chris, I’ll be honest, because I’ve spent seven years writing this book. I’ve spent seven years in really immersive therapy and really working hard on my recovery. I honestly believe that most of my memories now are folded up and put inside that cupboard. I still get … there’s no question that I still get jolted sometimes, but I know where every memory is. I know where they all are, and I know that the anniversary of Namir and Saeed’s deaths are coming up next month. I’ll feel emotional about that, but that’s fine. It’s okay. I’m at peace with myself. I’ve made peace with myself over that, and I’ll know to expect the emotion-

    Chris Hedges:

    I just want to add, that was a very important part in your recovery was a ritual.

    Dean Yates:

    Yes.

    Chris Hedges:

    A religious ritual of your own design, but that doesn’t matter. I went to seminary. I mean, I’m a believer in ritual and that it was carrying out that ritual that … and as I remember, I think you spoke to them in that ritual, but just talk about that briefly.

    Dean Yates:

    Yeah, and it was basically … and actually, I got this idea by reading books by American veterans, by American … essentially American spiritual healers, people who have worked with American veterans and brought them to peace with what they saw and did in Vietnam. And the idea was … people helped me come up with this idea for a ritual … a memorial service in a chapel on the 10th anniversary of Namir and Saeed’s-

    Chris Hedges:

    It was a mosque, wasn’t it? It was a mosque.

    Dean Yates:

    No, I also went to a mosque. I also went to a mosque nearby and got advice from an imam. So I brought the two religions, Christianity and Islam together, but it was having that memorial service where I wrote them a letter. I wrote them a 5,000 word letter, which took nearly a week and in it, I sort of poured my heart into this letter and that memorial service that I held, I was able to … that process, it wasn’t like, “Let’s have a memorial service and I’ll forgive myself.” It was the process of getting to that service, the planning, the thinking about it, and I had a spiritual care worker who did the work with me, and then, the culmination of that memorial service, she poured cold water over my hands.

    She anointed the sign … did the sign of the cross on my forehead. I felt absolved. I literally felt clenched. I’m not religious, but it was the ritual of that process that helped me make peace with myself. It was very important.

    Chris Hedges:

    Just to close, where would you say you are now?

    Dean Yates:

    So I actually don’t like to use the word recovery because I think recovery is more of a physical manifestation. I just feel like I’ve written a new narrative for myself. I’ve healed, that’s a better way of referring to it. I really feel healed. I feel like this is a new chapter in my life, but the trauma that I experienced and what happened is just part of my … it’s part the new identity that I’ve forged for myself, and it’s integrated into who I am and who I want to be. I got to say I’m a pretty happy person these days, Chris.

    Chris Hedges:

    Great. That was Dean Yates on his memoir, Line in the Sand. I want to thank the Real News Network and its production team, Cameron Granadino, Adam Coley, David Hebden, and Kayla Rivara. You can find me at chrishedges.substack.com.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • President Biden accidentally referred to Putin’s war in “Iraq” when answering questions from the press, a year after former president George W Bush made the same gaffe. Both men played crucial roles in the push to invade Iraq.

    Asked on Wednesday whether the short-lived Prigozhin rebellion was a sign that Putin was weakening, Biden replied, “It’s hard to tell really. But he’s clearly losing the war in Iraq.”

    During the 2020 presidential race, Current Affairs’ Nathan J Robinson wrote the following about Biden’s pivotal role in manufacturing support for the Iraq invasion:

    In 2003, Biden was “a senator bullish about the push to war [in Iraq] who helped sell the Bush administration’s pitch to the American public,” who “voted for — and helped advance — the Bush agenda.” He was the war’s “most crucial” senate supporter. Biden repeated the myth that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, saying that “these weapons must be dislodged from Saddam Hussein, or Saddam Hussein must be dislodged from power.” The resulting war was one of the most deadly catastrophes in the history of U.S. foreign policy — the Iraqi death toll was in the hundreds of thousands or possibly even the millions, and 4,500 American troops died.

    That Biden’s decomposing brain would find the word “Iraq” when reaching for the word which means “nation that has been illegally invaded by an evil government” is positively Freudian.

    In May of last year during a speech in Dallas, George W Bush made a similar Freudian confession, saying, “The result is an absence of checks and balances in Russia, and the decision of one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq. I mean, of Ukraine.”

    After correcting himself with a nervous chuckle, Bush broke the tension with the words, “Iraq too. Anyway.” He then quipped that he is 75 years old, leaning harder on his “Aw shucks gee willikers I’m such a goofball” persona than he ever has in his entire life.

    I defy you to find me anything that is more quintessentially representative of the state of the US empire than these two clips. Two decaying empire managers fumbling around in their skulls for the name of nation that’s been invaded by murderous thugs, and coming up with the name of the nation they themselves invaded. It’s truly a thing of beauty.

    It’s absolutely ridiculous that they’re trying to charge Putin with war crimes while these two mass murderers are walking free. As American law professor Dale Carpenter has said, “If citizens cannot trust that laws will be enforced in an evenhanded and honest fashion, they cannot be said to live under the rule of law. Instead, they live under the rule of men corrupted by the law.” This is all the more true of laws which would exist between nations.

    It’s not a “whataboutism” to say it’s absurd to charge Putin with war crimes without charging men like Bush and Biden — it’s a completely devastating argument against the claim being made. If the law doesn’t apply to everyone, then it’s not the law, it’s just corruption. It’s a tool of the powerful.

    ____________

    All my work is free to bootleg and use in any way, shape or form; republish it, translate it, use it on merchandise; whatever you want. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, throwing some money into my tip jar on PatreonPaypal, or Substack, buying an issue of my monthly zine, and following me on FacebookTwitterSoundcloud or YouTube. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • Listen to a reading of this article (reading by Tim Foley):

    (Readers sensitive to discussion of inappropriate adult behavior toward children may want to skip this one.)

    There’s a really gross video going around of the Dalai Lama kissing a young boy on the lips and telling him to suck his tongue while an adult audience looks on approvingly. A tweet from Tibet.net last month shows a video clip of the Tibetan spiritual leader with the child and says the encounter took place during his “meeting with students and members of M3M Foundation,” though Tibet.net’s clip cuts out the sexually inappropriate part of the encounter.

    Here is a hyperlink to a video of the interaction. For those who understandably do not wish to see such a thing but are comfortable with a text description, here’s a new write-up from News.com.au:

    The Dalai Lama has raised eyebrows after kissing a young Indian boy on the lips and asking him to “suck” his tongue at a recent event.

     

    Footage of the bizarre interaction, which occurred last month during an event for India’s M3M Foundation, has gone viral on social media.

     

    The leader of Tibetan Buddhism, Tenzin Gyatso, was hosting students and members of the foundation at his temple in Dharamshala, India, where he lives in exile.

     

    In the video, the boy approaches the microphone and asks, “Can I hug you?”

     

    The 87-year-old says “OK, come” and invites him on stage.

     

    The Dalai Lama motions to his cheek and says “first here” and the boy gives him a hug and kiss.

     

    He holds the boy’s arm and turns to him, saying “then I think fine here also” as he points to his lips.

     

    The spiritual leader then grabs the boy’s chin and kisses him on the mouth as the audience laughs.

     

    “And suck my tongue,” the Dalai Lama tells the boy, sticking out his tongue.

     

    They press their foreheads together and the boy briefly pokes out his tongue before backing away, as the Dalai Lama gives him a playful slap on the chest and laughs.

    What is it with power-adjacent clergymen and child molestation, anyway? As Michael Parenti noted in 2003, sexual abuse was commonplace in the tyrannical environment of feudal Tibet, over which the 14th Dalai Lama would still preside had it not been forcibly annexed by the PRC in the 1950s. While the slogan of “Free Tibet” has long been used as a propaganda bludgeon by the west against China particularly and against communism generally, the truth of the matter is that Tibet was quantifiably a far more tyrannical and oppressive place to live back when it was supposedly “free”.

    I went to see the Dalai Lama a long time ago when he came to speak at Melbourne, and I remember what stood out the most for me was how completely lacking in depth or profundity it was. As someone with an intense interest in spirituality and enlightenment I always found it perplexing that someone so highly regarded in the circles I moved in had nothing to say on such matters besides superficial, Sesame Street-level remarks about being nice and trying to make the world a better place. Probably no one alive today is more commonly associated with Buddhism and spiritual awakening in western consciousness than the Dalai Lama, yet everything I’ve ever read or heard from him has struck me as unskillful, unhelpful and vapid when compared to the words of other spiritual teachers.

    That confusing discrepancy cleared up after I got into political analysis and learned that the Dalai Lama is probably not someone who should be looked to for spiritual guidance, and is actually far too messed up inside to have accomplished much inner development as a person.

    Take an interview he did back in September 2003, a solid six months after the invasion of Iraq. The Dalai Lama told AP that he believed the US invasion of Afghanistan was “perhaps some kind of liberation” that could “protect the rest of civilization,” as was the USA’s brutal intervention in Korea, and that the US invasion of Iraq was “complicated” and would take more time before its morality could be determined. In 2005, years after the invasion, after normal mainstream members of the public had realized the war was a disaster, the Dalai Lama still said “The Iraq war — it’s too early to say, right or wrong.”

    This is plainly someone with a broken moral compass. These are basic, bare-minimum assessments that any normal person with any degree of psychological and emotional health can quickly sort out for themselves, and he still winds up basically on the same side of these issues as some of the worst people on earth.

    But I guess that’s about the best anyone could expect from a literal CIA asset. His administration received $1.7 million a year from the Central Intelligence Agency through the 1960s, and it’s reported that he himself personally received $180,000 a year from the CIA for decades.

    From The New York Review of Books:

    Many friends of Tibet and admirers of the Dalai Lama, who has always advocated nonviolence, believe he knew nothing about the CIA program. But Gyalo Thondup, one of the Dalai Lama’s brothers, was closely involved in the operations, and [CIA veteran John Kenneth] Knaus, who took part in the operation, writes that “Gyalo Thondup kept his brother the Dalai Lama informed of the general terms of the CIA support.” According to Knaus, starting in the late 1950s, the Agency paid the Dalai Lama $15,000 a month. Those payments came to an end in 1974.

    The CIA is easily the most depraved institution in the world today, so it would be reasonable to expect the moral development of someone so intimately involved with it to be a bit stunted. Ten or fifteen years ago it would’ve surprised me to learn that I would one day type these words, but it turns out the Dalai Lama is a real asshole.

    It’s rare to find a spiritual teacher who has expanded their consciousness inwardly enough to have useful things to say about enlightenment, and of those who do it’s extremely rare to find one who has also expanded their consciousness outwardly enough to discuss world events from a place of wisdom and understanding as well. The Dalai Lama is as far from this as you could possibly get: he has lived his life in cooperation with the most unwise institutions on earth, and he is less inwardly developed than most people you might pass on the street.

    People should stop looking up to this freak.

    __________________

    My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, throwing some money into my tip jar on PatreonPaypal, or Substack, buying an issue of my monthly zine, and following me on FacebookTwitterSoundcloud or YouTube. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.



  • Recently, the US Senate voted on a bipartisan basis to rescind the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) in Iraq. President Biden, who voted for that AUMF in 2003, has said he will sign it if it gets to his desk.

    At this writing, it is unclear if the U.S. House will post the rescission for a vote and, if so, whether it will pass in that chamber. I fervently hope that it will, so one of the most notorious episodes in U.S. history can be peacefully laid to rest.

    If that does happen, it would be a strong parallel to the rescission of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution by the U.S. Senate in 2009. That AUMF in 1964 was also based on deception and authorized the U.S. military intervention in Vietnam, which became the greatest American debacle of that era.

    But far more important, rescinding the Iraq AUMF would repudiate deception and manipulation by any Presidential Administration as happened with the George W. Bush Administration in getting Congress to support it. It would also discourage open-ended Congressional AUMFs with no expiration date, which so far has allowed the one in Iraq to continue for two decades. In short, it would re-establish the Constitutional principle that only Congress can declare war, and repudiate the decades-long trend toward an imperial US presidency.

    In the lead-up to the U.S. attack on Iraq 20 years ago, as the executive director of the Princeton-based Coalition for Peace Action, I helped lead intensive organizing to try to prevent it.

    We organized numerous demonstrations opposing the Bush administration’s campaign to start a war with Iraq, including joining a demonstration of over 1 million in New York City shortly before the March 19, 2003 invasion. With demonstrations worldwide attended by tens of millions, it was the largest anti-war mobilization in history to try to prevent a war.

    We also did intensive lobbying in opposition to the Bush Administration’s AUMF to authorize the war. I remember being in a delegation that met with the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg shortly before the vote, at which he shared that he couldn’t justify sending his own son to that war so had decided to vote against it.

    Starting in August 2002, there was an intense mobilization by the Bush Administration with neoconservatives like Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to promote the war based on the deception that it was needed to prevent Iraq from using Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

    That culminated with a presentation by Secretary of State Colin Powell to the UN Security Council in February 2003 asserting the same supposed danger. The Council didn’t vote to support it. We put forward compelling evidence that the Bush Administration was deceiving the American people into supporting the war, but it began anyway.

    Years later, I had an in-person conversation with the Chief UN Weapons Inspector in Iraq, Dr. Hans Blix. He told me he had met in person with President Bush before he launched the war, and certified to him that Iraq had no nuclear weapons. He said he told him that if he were given just a few more months, he could certify that it also didn’t have Chemical or Biological Weapons. But Blix said Bush simply retorted that he had made the decision, and the US invasion happened shortly after.

    Peace-loving citizens in the U.S. and across the world organized intensively to end the war. I’m proud that the Coalition for Peace Action played a leading role in that effort in our region. But it wasn’t ended until 2011 when the US finally withdrew its last remaining troops as part of an agreement in 2008, before Bush finished his second term. Over 5,000 U.S. Servicemembers were killed, and tens of thousands wounded—including countless returning US Servicemembers who suffer from PTSD to this day. And up to one million Iraqis died.

    The U.S. House needs to complete rescission of this deceptive and extremely damaging AUMF. In January 2020, the Trump Administration invoked it to conduct a drone assassination of a top Iranian military leader who was in Bagdad, creating a grave danger of major war with Iran. Iran did a retaliatory strike against a U.S. base in Iraq. But thankfully, no U.S. troops were killed—though a considerable number were injured.

    Wars of choice in Vietnam and Iraq have not led to peaceful American-style democracies, as those can never be imposed from the outside. We need to rescind the AUMF for the Iraq War, as we did with the Tonkin Gulf AUMF that green-lighted the Vietnam War. Readers wanting to support that goal can visit peacecoalition.org.

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • As with all matters regarding United States policy, Australia will, if not agree outright with Washington, adopt a non-committal position — “quiet diplomacy”. Binoy Kampmark reports.

  •  

    Janine Jackson interviewed the Roots Action’s Norman Solomon about the 20th anniversary of the Iraq invasion for the March 24, 2023, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

          CounterSpin230324Solomon.mp3

     

    Janine Jackson: So here we are, 20 years after the US war on Iraq, and, to speak broadly, the popular understanding is that Iraq wasn’t behind the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and that they didn’t have weapons of mass destruction aimed at the US, weapons whose immediate threat, yes, was the vehemently argued premise for a grave assault on a sovereign country.

    Atlantic: The Iraq War Reconsidered

    Atlantic (3/13/23)

    But somehow, in all of this talkity-talk, the idea of acknowledgement of wrong—forget compensation, forget apology—is nowhere in evidence.

    The story has been made over such that the Iraq invasion was wrong, but still OK. Iraqis were harmed, but still helped. And all the advisors and experts that got it very wrong are still, somehow, right.

    The 2003 war on Iraq is, most importantly, a story about imperialist violence. But it’s also about the web of lies and disinformation used to advance it, and the role that nominally independent journalists played—and play.

    Norman Solomon has been thinking and working on these issues for decades. He’s been part of FAIR since the start. He’s co-founder of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. His most recent book is War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine, out soon from the New Press.

    He joins us now by phone from the Bay Area. Welcome back to CounterSpin, Norman Solomon.

    Norman Solomon: Thanks, Janine.

    JJ: There are so many places we could start. But I did want to stick a fork in one thing. Talking about media today, at the 20-year mark, the theme is missed signals, miscalculation, misunderstanding.

    It’s hard to talk about what happened, and media’s role, without recognizing that the George W. Bush administration and its advisors wanted and intended to invade Iraq before the September 11, 2001, attacks. But that’s not a contention. That’s just a thing we know, based on evidence, right?

    Guardian: Blogger bares Rumsfeld's post 9/11 orders

    Guardian (2/24/06)

    NS: Yes, Rumsfeld made a very clear statement in a memo, just in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, that they were going after Iraq. It was their “eyes on the prize,” in a grotesque sort of way.

    And when we look back 20 years, I think there’s a consistent thread that the media and the government excuses are basically intertwined. Which sort of makes sense, since the disinformation messaging after 9/11, before, during and after the invasion of Iraq—all that was also intertwined between government and mass media.

    And we think of and sometimes notice the revolving door of personnel, where someone is a press secretary for the president, then goes to a cable news network, or vice versa. George Stephanopoulos, and many others who followed him, just had this career path that was basically recycling between those in government who often deceive, and those in media who have a follow-up career. And they’re just in a different part of the deception chain, as it turns out.

    And so I think it’s fitting, unfortunately, that 20 years after so many of the government officials and media mavens and so-called journalists—quite often not deserving the name—that they were basically singing out of the same hymn book. And now they’re being exculpatory for each other and themselves at the 20th anniversary.

    One example that I think is just so profoundly grotesque is that in the months before the invasion of Iraq, you had people who were recycling falsehoods out of government sources, or government-designated, -anointed sources, into news media, like Judith Miller and Michael Gordon, onto the front pages of the New York Times.

    Then you would have Dick Cheney, for instance, who would go on the Sunday talkshows, knowing that his own office had funneled the disinformation into the New York Times, then he would say, “Well, don’t just believe us. This is being reported by the New York Times.”

    Intercept: The Architects of the Iraq War: Where Are They Now?

    Intercept (3/15/23)

    JJ: Right. And a number of folks have written recently—Jon Schwarz at the Intercept, Derek Seidman at Truthout, also Marjorie Cohn, Adam Johnson at Real News—about how these visible architects of the Iraq War, in government, but also in think tanks, and then also in media, they’ve all failed upward subsequently, haven’t they? Even knowing what we know, there’s been no comeuppance, no fallout, for those folks.

    NS: That is something I think we could call a repetition compulsion disorder that completely gets a reward system to back it up. Whereas those who step out of line, who don’t conflate being pro-war with being objective, they are not going to find upward mobility in media anywhere near so smooth. And often they just hit a brick wall, forget glass ceiling, they hit a brick wall above their heads.

    We have some examples that cry out for remembering and reminding people, that Phil Donahue, who had the temerity to actually have a variety of voices about the wisdom of invading Iraq in the months before in his primetime MSNBC program, we know because of a leaked memo that he was fired a few weeks before the invasion, precisely because people at the top of management—MSNBC, NBC News—they were worried that, as they put it in this, for a while, secret memo, that the flag-wavers at Fox and CNN would make MSNBC look bad because Donahue was allowing some anti-war voices onto the air.

    And I know from having been reporting and visiting Iraq before the invasion a few times, and writing about this at the time, including for FAIR, that there was a tremendous amount of pressure going on from news media, and to the extent there was an opening for debate, say in the summer and early fall of 2002, the aperture continued to narrow, and so the more that a consensus was being promoted and forced, you might say, that a war and invasion was necessary, the less space there was.

    Salon: The urbanity of evil: 20 years after the Iraq invasion, the lies continue

    Salon (3/19/23)

    I know personally, because I was able to go to Iraq with some delegations, a former senator and current member of Congress, and then with Sean Penn, and then with a UN official. I found in the late part of 2002 what was first a bit of an opening, where I would be invited on to CNN or MSNBC or even Fox. By the end of the autumn, that opening had pretty much closed, and certainly by the end of the year.

    And the explanation I was given was that in October of 2002, when the House and Senate voted that an invasion of Iraq would be authorized, that became official policy, and some of the bookers and so forth at the cable news networks would say, “Well, you know, now this is the US government stance that an invasion is in the cards; it’s officially authorized by the legislative branch. So there’s less controversy here.”

    JJ: And so now we need to close up any window of debate in the public conversation, because officials have decided what’s going to happen. And I don’t think that’s maybe everybody’s understanding of the way journalism works, or should work.

    NS: Yeah, it’s a sort of an ersatz, pseudo-journalism that sets the standard for professionalism. And we, I guess, ought to face it that when people move into the journalism profession, they’re out of college or whatever, what defines professional standards? It’s the ambience, the content, the style, the attitude that’s inherent in what people who have already made it in the profession are doing every day.

    Norman Solomon

    Norman Solomon: “High-quality media outlets in the United States of America basically served as conveyor belts for pro-war propaganda.”

    And so it’s an imitative quality that defines what journalism, or at least what passes for journalism, is. And part of that is not really apologizing, even later on. And I think this gets to what you were alluding to at the outset of our discussion, Janine, that when there’s an anniversary, or a look back, there’s really very little impetus for candor, least of all self-assessment or self-criticism, really, from these media institutions.

    And so even in some of the most conspicuous, egregious cases like the New York Times distortions and serving up just bogus stories, the Washington Post as well, when they did sort of mea culpas, many, many weeks later, they were sort of equivocal. And they avoided really shedding harsh light on how it could be that these two purportedly most important, high-quality media outlets in the United States of America basically served as conveyor belts for pro-war propaganda coming from the top of the US government.

    JJ: To me, the fact that when you look at the architects and the folks who are most prominent in mouthpiecing for this invasion, the fact that they are all still in high-paid and prominent positions, it underscores the fact that corporate media’s “debate,” it has a patina of rationality and of debate, but it’s really kind of just a club, right?

    There’s just certain folks that they listen to and whose ideas they promote. And it doesn’t matter if those folks are wrong or right, or if they’re reliable or not, or if they’re lying or ignorant, they’re just on the list. And then there are other people who are just not on the list, whether or not their predictions turn out to be right, or whether or not they’re reliable.

    And with Iraq, that was historians and regional specialists and human rights researchers. They’re just never going to be let into the conversation, no matter how correct they were.

    NS: There really are tacit media boundaries that I think are well-understood, however consciously or not, and when a misassessment was later shown to be egregiously wrong, with a war or peace at stake, there’s later on a sense of a clean slate, let’s wipe the record clean, because, eh, we all make mistakes, and so forth.

    And that goes to individuals and also to media organizations. And we might want to think the ones that are really top quality, they will cop to their mistakes, distortions, errors, even, or especially, when the errors were extremely important.

    And yet, that’s not the case. One example, which at least has to do with history—and we’re told that journalism is the first draft of history; OK, later on, there should be a better draft. Of course, one would hope that the first one was accurate, given that that is the most important, while these events are unfolding.

    So one example that comes to mind is the New York Times reported, early on in this whole 20-year span, that the invasion came after Saddam Hussein had kicked out UN weapons inspectors from the country in 1998. So this was the New York Times telling all of its readers that, hey, those UN weapons inspectors were pulled out of the country several years before the invasion, they were kicked out, Saddam Hussein did not allow them to inspect anymore.

    And FAIR, Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, made the clear and accurate point, and mobilized some messaging to the New York Times, that that’s an interesting story which happens to be false, and that Saddam Hussein did not kick out the UN weapons inspectors in 1998.

    They were withdrawn by the United Nations because the government of, under that point, President Bill Clinton had made clear it was about to bomb Iraq in what became known as Operation Desert Fox.

    And so it was because the US government announced, essentially, it was about to bomb the country that the UN thought it was prudent to save the lives, perhaps, of the UN inspectors, to withdraw them.

    And so that was something that FAIR activists were able to get the New York Times to publish a subsequent correction.

    New York Times: 20 Years On, a Question Lingers About Iraq: Why Did the U.S. Invade?

    New York Times (3/18/23)

    Fast forward many years, to the time of the 20th anniversary that we’ve just gone through, and the New York Times again publishes the falsehood that Saddam Hussein kicked out the weapons inspectors from the country in 1998, which reminds me of something that George Orwell wrote in 1984: “Those who control the present control the past. Those who control the past control the future.” And I think that’s a good cautionary note to anybody who thinks, well, this is just history, why talk about it now?

    Because all of this is prefigurative; it is actually reinforcing mindsets. These distortions are messaging to people, subtly and not so subtly, that at the end of the day, I think as you put it at the beginning of our discussion, Janine: The US government can be wrong, but it’s still OK.

    We can go into war and, OK, we made mistakes, etc., etc., which is easy for us to say, while other people experience it with more suffering by far than those in the US. But still the pretense, subtly or not, is it’s OK, because we mean well.

    There was a short story written 100 years ago called “Editha,” and there’s a character in it, and this is in about 1905, when it’s published, which is in the aftermath, really, of the US slaughter of people in the Philippines. And there’s a character who says: what a wonderful thing it is to live in a country that might be wrong, but when it’s wrong, is right anyway.

    JJ: And that’s the water that elite news media carry, and to folks who could think smarter, to a population that could handle reality, and react accordingly.

    And I guess that’s what makes me so angry, is that people pick up the paper thinking that they’re being addressed as an intelligent person who’s trying to make decisions about what they support and what they don’t support. And it’s just not what they’re getting. It’s not what they’re getting.

    And there were a few things that stand out to me, Norman, because I know that some of CounterSpin listeners weren’t born in 2003. And so they’ve only heard the remix, as it were. But there are things that stand out for those of us who were there.

    And one of them is a massive demonstration in New York, with thousands of other people who were opposing an imminent invasion of Iraq, who were pulled out of their apartments, people who don’t usually go out in the street, who don’t usually demonstrate. But we were very aware that this was a war that was going to be called in our name, specifically, like, look at what happened to New York on September 11. And it was supposed to be in our name.

    NYT: Rally in Washington Is Said to Invigorate the Antiwar Movement

    New York Times (10/30/02)

    And as I’ve said many times before, the most prominent message here in New York City was “our grief is not a cry for war,” and the desire to not turn the horror and loss of September 11 into more horror and loss for other people.

    And what I remember was coming home from this massive demonstration, and reading the New York Times saying, well, not a lot of people showed up, it wasn’t as many people as organizers thought, and so wrong, so wrong, that the Times had to go back and re-report the story later.

    And so I guess what I’m trying to get at is that the erasing and the denigrating of anti-war voices was key in 2003, and it’s key in 2023.

    NS: Absolutely. It’s the erasure of those who are either suffering under the US bombs, erasure from media coverage of substance and let alone empathy, and also erasure, as you say, of anti-war voices in our own communities in the United States, and the tremendous quantity, really, and depth of anti-war feeling and understanding. It is infuriating. It should be infuriating.

    And often, when I read even the best, what we’re told are the best, mass media outlets in the United States, it seems that there’s an effort in effect to infantilize the readers, to almost like what was in school called the Weekly Reader, where things were really, if not dumbed-down, it’s just simplified, and the lens on the world, the window on the world, is so tinted red, white and blue. We’re being assumed to be either naive, gullible or simply blindly (what passes for) patriotic.

    And the staying power of people who are in the upper reaches of editorial decision-making is really quite stunning. It’s hard to think of anyone who was in a major position 20 years ago, propagating and fomenting and spreading the lies to grease the path, the skids, for the war on Iraq, it’s hard to think of many who suffered at all from their careers. They simply did fine, the ones who did all that, just went right along, often rising into the profession’s upper reaches.

    New Yorker: Making a Case

    New Yorker (1/26/03)

    I think, for instance, of David Remnick, who was already the editor of the New Yorker magazine during the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq in March of 2003, and he wrote a de facto editorial calling for the invasion of Iraq. It was quite vehement. And that was a couple of months before the invasion.

    But even worse, under his editorial leadership, David Remnick ran a magazine, the New Yorker, that published one article after another that was absolute distortion, claiming without any evidence—and it certainly turned out to be false—that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government had ties to Al Qaeda, had ties to what happened during 9/11. These were very powerful messages.

    And many people, naively, gullibly assumed, well, it’s in the New York Times, or it’s in the New Yorker, or it’s in the Washington Post, that these kinds of stories were true, or had credibility.

    In fact, they were disinformation of the most dangerous and ultimately destructive kind.

    JJ: And finally, and following from that, it’s work, isn’t it, to resist the confusion and the cognitive dissonance that elite media enforce, for a person who’s just trying to inform themselves about the world.

    The messages you get—sovereignty matters, except when we say it doesn’t. Invasion is horrific, except when we do it. Look how they oppress their own people; that’s reason enough to force regime change. Oh, but don’t talk about that in the US, you freaking commie.

    Forget your political stance—it just breaks your brain to try to pretend to follow elite media’s, what they call rationality. And I guess, above all, it makes you feel confused and alone.

    And what I want to ask you is, what do you see as the antidotes to that? Where do you see the place for folks to go who recognize how brain-breaking and how wrong this is?

    NS: As you say, the effort is so important, because if we’re simply passive and let it wash over us, that’s not going to work.

    I think recognizing that the essence of propaganda is repetition, and that if we are immersed in this constant waterfall, this flood of corporate-driven media coverage and what passes for analysis and so forth, that we’re in the deluge, and that we need to swim, so to speak, in a very different direction.

    And that includes, of course—I don’t mean this as a cliche—thinking for ourselves, and also availing ourselves and supporting media outlets that are very much willing to swim upstream to challenge the conventional media wisdom that is so driven by, among other things, the military industrial complex and corporate power.

    And so that should mean including supporting FAIR, subscribing to the newsletter Extra!, going to FAIR.org, supporting CounterSpin; going to outlets like Truthout and Common Dreams and the Intercept and elsewhere, Democracy Now!

    These are very important outlets, because if we don’t sustain them, we will simply be overwhelmed by the disinformation machine.

    JJ: We’ve been speaking with longtime FAIR associate Norman Solomon of RootsAction.org and the Institute for Public Accuracy. His latest book, War Made Invisible, will be out soon from the New Press. Thank you so much, Norman Solomon, for joining us this week on CounterSpin.

    NS: Thanks a lot, Janine.

     

    The post ‘Media and Government Excuses Are Basically Intertwined’ appeared first on FAIR.

  • “The hypocrisy in … the Bush administration’s overall national security strategy – is monumental. If having weapons of mass destruction and a history of using them is a criteria, then surely the United States must pose the greatest threat to humanity that has ever existed … While the U.S. is massively expanding its biological weapons research capabilities – for example by upgrading its bioresearch facilities at the Livermore and Los Alamos nuclear weapons labs to aerosolize live anthrax and genetically modify bio-organisms – it is blocking a protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention that would allow international inspectors into U.S. facilities.” 

    — Jacqueline Cabasso, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation

    “There are well over 90 UN Security Council resolutions that are currently being violated by countries other than Iraq. The vast majority of these resolutions are being violated by allies of the United States that receive U.S. military, economic, and diplomatic support. Indeed, the U.S. has effectively blocked the UN Security Council from enforcing these resolutions against its allies.” 

    — Stephen Zunes, Associate Professor of Politics, University of San Francisco

    “In his [President Bush’s] speech to the nation on Oct. 7, he said ‘America is a friend of the people of Iraq.’ Try telling that to a friend of mine in Baghdad who walked out of his house following a U.S. bomb attack to find his neighbor’s head rolling down the street; or to a taxi driver I met whose four-year-old child shook uncontrollably for three days following Clinton’s 1998 ‘Monicagate’ bombing diversion. Try telling it to the mother of Omran ibn Jwair, whom I met in the village of Toq al-Ghazzalat after a U.S. missile killed her 13-year-old son while he was tending sheep in the field. Try telling it to the hundreds of mothers I have seen crying over their dying babies in Iraqi hospitals, and to the hundreds of thousands of parents who have actually lost their infant children due to the cruel U.S. blockade, euphemistically called ‘sanctions.’”

    — James Jennings, President, Conscience International 

    “…the establishment of the ‘no-fly zones’ violated Iraq’s sovereignty, something explicitly guaranteed by every Security Council resolution on Iraq. The infiltration of spies into Unscom … was a further violation of the inspections process – and among the information they collected was anything that could help target Saddam Hussein for assassination, in violation of both international law and domestic executive order …. the U.S. used (weapons) inspections explicitly to provoke crises …”

    — Rahul Mahajan, author, The New Crusade: America’s War on Terrorism

    “… a unilateral attack by the United States and the United Kingdom against Iraq without further authorization from the Security Council would still remain illegal and therefore constitute aggression. In recognition of this fact, British government officials are already reportedly fearful of prosecution by the International Criminal Court. And the Bush Jr. administration is doing everything humanly possible to sabotage the ICC in order to avoid any prospect of ICC prosecution of high-level U.S. government officials over a war against Iraq. Lawyers call this ‘consciousness of guilt.’”

    — Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law, University of Illinois, College of Law

    “Claims of a threat posed by Iraq to international peace and security are entirely untenable. Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet refuted Bush’s claims in a letter to the Senate, where he said clearly the threat of an Iraqi WMD attack was virtually nonexistent, except possibly in the eventuality of a U.S. war for ‘regime change.’ Nobody claims Iraq has nuclear weapons, nobody has produced any evidence that Iraq is capable of weaponizing biological agents, and it’s quite clear that Iraq can have no more than a nominal chemical weapons capability.”

    — Rahul Mahajan, author, The New Crusade: America’s War on Terrorism

    “… the U.S. government has repeatedly stated that it would continue the economic sanctions even if Iraq were to fully comply with the weapons inspectors. This means the U.S. policy over the last decade gave a disincentive for Iraqi compliance with the weapons inspectors and ensured an indefinite continuation of the devastating economic sanctions with no legitimate cause.”

    — -Sam Husseini, Communications Director, Institute For Public Accuracy

    “Although it’s true that Iraq has repeatedly restricted access, its degree of compliance is very high – far higher than the compliance of most nations with regard to binding decisions like Security Council resolutions or judgments of the International Court of Justice. Israel, for example, is in violation of numerous Security Council resolutions with no attempt at progress toward compliance. The United States vetoes Security Council resolutions directed against it, as it did with a resolution against its invasion of Panama, and it completely ignored a ruling by the International Court of Justice to cease its terrorist operations against Nicaragua and to pay $17 billion in restitution.”

    — Rahul Mahajan, author, The New Crusade: America’s War on Terrorism

    “Language finding Iraq already in ‘material breach’ and being given ‘a final opportunity’ to come clean is a rather ominous way of predetermining the outcome …”

    — James Jennings, President, Conscience International

    “We must not forget what this [UN Security Council Resolution 1441] does not do. It does not authorize the United States to go to war against Iraq. Despite claims to the contrary by the United States, that can only happen by means of a second resolution. The UN Charter requires specific and unambiguous authorization for the use of force; it is for the Security Council and not the United States to decide the consequences of any failure to implement resolutions.”

    — Michael Ratner, President, Center For Constitutional Rights

    “Since Bush came to office, the United States government has torn up more international treaties and disregarded more UN conventions than the rest of the world has in twenty years. It has scuppered the biological weapons convention while experimenting, illegally, with biological weapons of its own. It has refused to grant chemical weapons inspectors full access to its laboratories, and has destroyed attempts to launch chemical inspections in Iraq. It has ripped up the antiballistic missile treaty, and appears to be ready to violate the nuclear test ban treaty. It has permitted CIA hit squads, to recommence covert operations of the kind that included, in the past, the assassination of foreign heads of state. It has sabotaged the small arms treaty, undermined the international criminal court, refused to sign the climate change protocol and, last month, sought to immobilize the UN convention against torture.”

    — George Monbiot, The Guardian

    “All he [UN weapons inspector Hans Blix] can know is the results (sic) of his own investigations. And that does not prove Saddam does not have weapons of mass destruction.”

    — Richard Perle, Chairman, Defense Policy Board

    “What it would prove would be that the inspection process had been successfully defeated by the Iraqis.”

    — Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, on what a lack of evidence of Iraqi WMDs would prove

    “If they [the Iraqis] turn on their radars we’re going to blow up their goddamn SAMs. They know we own their country. We own their airspace …. We dictate the way they live and talk. And that’s what’s great about America right now. It’s a good thing, especially when there’s a lot of oil out there we need.”

    — U.S. Brigadier General William Looney, 1996 

    Fuck Saddam. We’re taking him out.”

    — President George Bush to Condoleezza Rice

    *****

    Sources:

    General Looney quote: William Blum, Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower, (Common Courage, 2000) p. 159

    Zunes quotes from Stephen Zunes, Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism, (Common Courage, 2003)

    GW Bush quote: Time magazine, May 13, 2002, “We’re Taking Him Out”

    Remaining quotes from Norman Solomon and Reese Erlich, Target Iraq: What the News Media Don’t Tell You, (Context Books, 2003) p. 5, 51, 54, 71, 97-8, 142-86 passim.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The UK plans to give tank-busting depleted uranium (DU) ammunition to Ukraine. This shows, once again, that nothing has been learned from the Iraq war. The plan to send the radioactive arms came to light as the 20th anniversary of the Iraq invasion passed. Fallujah in Iraq still records high rates of birth deformities and cancer years after the munitions were used there.

    Russian president Vladimir Putin slammed the decision. He said Russia would:

    respond accordingly given that the collective West is starting to use weapons with a ‘nuclear component’.

    Meanwhile, US sources said the munitions were in common use. Effectively, the US is suggesting that the use of this form of weapon is unremarkable. However, the dangers are undeniable.

    Radioactive weapons

    The West used DU ammunition in the 1991 and 2003 Gulf Wars. The effects of DU became most evident in Fallujah. As the NGO Nuclear Risks has it:

    The use of depleted uranium in the war on Iraq in 2003 has led to expo­sure of the local population to radioactive uranium dust. This could potentially explain the significant rise in cancer and congenital malformations documented in Fallujah after 2003. In addition, soldiers who were in contact with the radioactive ammunition also have increased morbidity rates.

    But there is another aspect to British DU munitions. The 2016 Chilcot Inquiry into Iraq drew on an important military report. It detailed that the UK sees no need clean up its deadly remnants. As a 2016 report in The Ecologist outlined:

    In other words, the UK’s stance is that chemically toxic and radioactive DU ‘ash’ from spent munitions is strictly the problem of the country in which the munitions were used, in this case Iraq – and that the UK, which fired the DU shells, has no formal responsibility of cleaning up the mess.

    The key point here is that DU takes a deadly toll long after a war ends:

    Vehicles contaminated by DU – for example destroyed tanks, armoured personnel carriers – pose a particular risk to civilians, both to workers in the scrap metal industry and to children who may play on them. Levels of contamination can be high and, because the interiors are not exposed to the elements, DU may remain in the vehicles for long periods.

    Toxic waste

    Deadly waste is a major concern in modern warfare. Ukraine’s vast farmland is already being poisoned, as revealed on NPR:

    Soil tests performed by scientists found high concentrations of toxins like mercury, arsenic and other pollutants that, you know, we assume are byproducts of the war in Ukraine. It’s my understanding that these tests show that these toxins are in millions of acres of farmland and forests.

    Indeed, other forms of toxic war waste also endanger people in Iraq and Afghanistan even after military withdrawal. Burn pits, where all manner of toxic material was torched daily during the occupations, are a prime example. The Centre for Cultural Anthropology warned:

    Pollution and toxification are central to US military violence. The burn pits both exemplify and render in microcosm the way such violence fosters some privileged lifeworlds by destroying others.

    Wasteland

    Modern warfare turns the battlefield toxic. Ukraine’s vast farmlands – the ‘breadbasket of Europe’ are already showing these effects. To add more radioactive munitions to the chaos is highly irresponsible.

    On top of this, the UK still maintains that it has no duty to clear up its toxic war waste. The world desperately needs a commitment by all countries to step away from these kinds of lethal materials.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons, cropped to 770 x 403.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The International Criminal Court should uphold an objective and impartial stance, respect the jurisdictional immunity enjoyed by the head of state in accordance with international law, exercise its functions and powers prudently by the law, interpret and apply international law in good faith, and avoid politicization and double standards.

    — Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin

    This commentary really should be part two from the piece I wrote last week in the run-up to the anti-war mobilization that took place March 18 which commemorated the 20th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. In that article I made a similar argument about why the U.S. should be seen as the greatest threat to the survival of collective humanity on our planet.

    That point, however, needs to be reinforced because in typical arrogance, on the eve of that mobilization and the official March 20th date of the U.S. invasion, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issues an arrest warrant for Russia President Vladimir Putin while Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Tony Blair and Barack Obama, responsible for horrific crimes against humanity and literally millions of deaths combined in Serbia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Syria, walk around as free individuals.

    It would be comical if it was not so deadly serious and absurd. Just a couple of years ago when the ICC signaled under the leadership of the Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda that it wanted to conduct an investigation into possible crimes in Afghanistan by the U.S. state, the Trump Administration told the court in no uncertain terms that the Court would be subjected to the full wrath of the U.S. government and the Court quietly demurred in favor of a national probe that everyone knew was a sham.

    This is just part of the infuriating double standards that Chinese spokesperson Wang Wenbin refers to. For many in the global South, the “neutral” international mechanisms and structures created to uphold international law have lost significant credibility.

    The politicization of the ICC on the Ukrainian war and the unprincipled participation of the United Nations that provided political cover for the invasion and occupation of Haiti after the devastating earthquake in 2010 are just two examples of how international structures ostensibly committed to upholding international law and the UN Charter are now seen as corrupt instruments of a dying U.S. and Western colonial empire.

    How did we get here?

    It is not a mere historical coincidence that the world became a much more dangerous place with the escalation of conflicts that threatened international peace in the 1990s. Without the countervailing force of the Soviet Union, the delusional white supremacists making U.S. policy believed that the next century was going to be a century of unrestrained U.S. domination.

    And who would be dominated? Largely the nations of the global South but also Europe with an accelerated integration plan in 1993 that the U.S. supported because it was seen as a more efficient mechanism for deploying U.S. capital and further solidifying trade relations with the huge and lucrative European Market.

    Central to the assertion of U.S. global power, however, was the judicious use of military force. “Full Spectrum Dominance” was the strategic objective that would ensure the realization of the “Project for a New American Century” (PNAC). There was just one challenge that had to be overcome. The U.S. population still suffered from the affliction labeled the “Vietnam syndrome.” Traumatized by the defeat in Vietnam the population was still reticent about giving its full support to foreign engagements that could develop into possible military confrontations.

    How was this challenge overcome? Human rights.

    Humanitarian interventionism,” with its corollary the “responsibility to protect” would emerge in the late 90s as one of the most innovative propaganda tools ever created. Produced by Western human rights community and championed by psychopaths like Samantha Power, the humanitarianism of the benevolent empire became the ideological instrument that allowed the U.S. to fully commit itself to military options to advance the interests of U.S. corporate and financial interests globally while being fully supported by the U.S. population.

    With this new ideological tool, the Clinton Administration bombed Serbia for 78 days in 1999 without any legal basis but with the moral imperative of the “responsibility to protect.” By the early 2000s it was obvious that the U.S. was not going to be bound by international law. Operating through NATO and with the formulation of a “rules-based order” in which the U.S. and its Western European allies would make the rules and enforce the order, the world has been plunged into unending wars, illegal sanctions, political subversion and the corruption of international structures that were supposed to instrumentalize the legal, liberal international order.

    But white supremacist colonial hubris resulted in the empire overextending itself.

    Twenty years after the illegal and immoral attack on Iraq where it is estimated that over a million people perished and twelve years after the racist attack on Libya where NATO dropped over 26,000 bombs and murdered up to 50,000 people, the U.S.-EU-NATO Axis of Domination is in irreversible decline but the U.S. hegemon, like a wounded wild beast is still dangerous and is proving to be even more reckless then just a few years ago. 

    The disastrous decision to provoke what the U.S. thought would be a limited proxy war with Russia that would allow it to impose sanctions on the Russian Federation will be recorded in history, along with the invasion of Iraq, as the two pivotal decisions that greatly precipitated the decline of the U.S. empire.

    However, with over eight hundred U.S. bases globally, a military budget close to a trillion dollars and a doctrine that prioritizes a “military-first strategy,” the coming defeat in Ukraine might translate into even more irresponsible and counterproductive moves against the Chinese over Taiwan in the Pacific and more aggressive actions to maintain U.S. hegemony in the Americas through SOUTHCOM and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

    Global polls of international opinion continue to reflect that the peoples’ of our planet see the U.S. as the greatest threat to international peace. They are correct.

    The commemoration of the attacks on the peoples of Iraq and Libya is an act of solidarity not only with the peoples of those nations, but with the peoples and nations suffering from the malign policies of this dying empire today. It is a time of rededication to peace and to justice, two elements that are inextricable. In the Black Alliance for Peace, we say that peace is not the absence of conflict, but rather the achievement by popular struggle and self-defense of a world liberated from global systems of oppression that include colonialism, imperialism, patriarchy, and white supremacy.

    This understanding is the foundation for why we are launching with our partners, an effort to revive the call to make the Americas a Zone of Peace on April the 4th, the day the state murdered Dr. King and the date that the Black Alliance for Peace was launched in 2017.

    For Africans and other colonized peoples, the task is clear. The U.S.-EU-NATO Axis of Domination embodies the anti-life structures of colonial/capitalist oppression and must be seen as the primary contradiction facing global humanity. We recognize that other contradictions exist. We are not naive. But for the exploited and colonized peoples of this planet, until there is a shift in the international balance of forces away from the maniacs in the “collective West,” the future of our planet and collective humanity remains imperiled.

    The post Commemorations of the Attack on Iraq March 20 and Libya March 19 Reaffirms that the U.S.-EU-NATO Axis of Domination Remains the Greatest Threat to International Peace on our Planet first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  •  

    On the 20th anniversary of the US- and British-led invasion of Iraq, the New York Times continued to dedicate itself to a waffling narrative, one that writes out most of history and opts for a message of “it’s complicated” to discuss the disaster it can’t admit that it helped create.

    NYT: 20 Years After U.S. Invasion, Iraq Is a Freer Place, but Not a Hopeful One

    The New York Times (3/18/23) looks back on the Iraq invasion: “For many Iraqis, it is hard to appreciate the positive developments.”

    On Saturday, the Times (3/18/23) published an article on its website headlined, “20 Years After US Invasion, Iraq Is a Freer Place, but Not a Hopeful One.” The next morning, the article (under the headline “Lost Hopes Haunt Iraqis, Two Decades After Invasion”) was featured at the top-right corner of its front page—making it one of the most prominent articles in the English-speaking world that day.

    The article, by Baghdad bureau chief Alissa Rubin, began and ended in a Fallujah cemetery, and it certainly painted a gloomy picture of both present-day Iraq and the ravages of war. Yet the Times couldn’t help but balance the gloom with positive notes. Rubin quoted former Iraqi President Barham Salih explaining that there have been “a lot of positive developments” in Iraq. For instance: “Once [Saddam] was gone, suddenly we had elections. We had an open polity, a multitude of press.” Another of those positive developments, Rubin wrote, was “a better relationship with the US military.”

    And yet, Rubin went on, “For many Iraqis, it is hard to appreciate the positive developments when unemployment is rampant.” She also pointed to the fact that “about a quarter of Iraqis live at or below the poverty line” and, above all, to “the increasingly entrenched government corruption.” (Today, Iraq shares the rank of 157 out of 180 countries on the Transparency International corruption index with Myanmar and Azerbaijan, as the Times noted.)

    Rubin offered only glimpses of responsibility. Of the George W. Bush administration’s claims of weapons of mass destruction, she simply wrote, “no evidence to back up those accusations was ever found.” Of the power vacuum that Iran stepped into, Rubin wrote, “Abetting and expanding Iran’s influence in Iraq was hardly the intention of American policymakers in 2003.” The power-sharing government system the US installed “is regarded by many as having undermined from the start any hope of good governance,” she explained. “But Mr. Crocker and others said that at the time it seemed the only way to ensure that all sects and ethnicities would have a role in governing.”

    Understating catastrophe

    NYT: From Iraq, Lessons for the Next War

    Looking back on six years covering Iraq, the New York Times‘ Alissa Rubin (11/1/09) acknowledged that “Americans, too, did their share of violence”—but she didn’t call it “horrific crimes” or “brutality.”

    It’s perhaps an unsurprising framing, coming from a journalist whose reflections on Iraq in 2009 (11/1/09; FAIR.org, 11/3/09) included the observation that while Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq committed “horrific crimes,” and Kurds displayed “brutality,” the “Americans, too, did their share of violence.” But maybe, she seemed to suggest, Americans didn’t commit enough violence?

    Among the worst they did was wishful thinking, the misreading of the winds and allowing what Yeats called “the blood-dimmed tide” to swell. Could they have stopped it? Probably not. Could it have been stemmed so that it did less damage, saved some of the fathers and brothers, mothers and sons? Yes, almost certainly, yes.

    Though her present-day article did emphasize the deaths and loss suffered by Iraqis, the numbers Rubin offered represented the floor, not the ceiling, of estimates. She wrote that “about 200,000 civilians died at the hands of American forces, Al Qaeda militants, Iraqi insurgents or the Islamic State terrorist group, according to Brown University’s Cost of War Project.”

    This only includes violent deaths, and only of civilians. A peer-reviewed study in 2013 estimated that more than 400,000 Iraqi deaths from March 1, 2003 through June 30, 2011 were directly attributable to the war, with more than 60% due to violence and the rest to other war-related causes.

    Meanwhile, Opinion Research Business (Reuters, 1/30/08) used polling methods to estimate that, only five years into the war, “more than 1 million Iraqis have died as a result of the conflict in their country since the US-led invasion in 2003.”

    And the New York Times didn’t mention another dark part of the Brown University study: The war helped create more than 9 million Iraqi refugees and internally displaced people. Also unreported at the Times: US war and sanctions left an estimated one in 10 Iraqis disabled (Reuters, 1/21/10). In other words, however bleak a picture it might have painted, Rubin’s piece understated the catastrophe.

    Selling the case for war

    NYT: U.S. SAYS HUSSEIN INTENSIFIES QUEST FOR A-BOMB PARTS

    New York Times (9/8/02): “The attempted purchases [of aluminum tubes] are not the only signs of a renewed Iraqi interest in acquiring nuclear arms.”

    Rubin also did not acknowledge that by the New York Times’ own admission (5/26/04), a year after the invasion, the paper had published numerous articles based on anonymous Iraqi informants that promoted false claims about Iraq’s pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.

    The magnitude of the Times’ role in selling the case for the Iraq War is staggering. A few of the dubious articles about Saddam’s weapons program involved the infamous reporter Judith Miller (9/8/02, 1/23/03, 4/21/03), who today works at the conservative Manhattan Institute, writing pieces for City Journal about the superiority of Red State policies (3/1/23) and condemning “cancel culture” (6/6/21).

    Many of Miller’s key pieces of disinformation were co-written with Michael Gordon, who remained a lead journalist for the Times for many years, continuing to relay the charges of anonymous US officials against official enemies (FAIR.org, 2/16/07; Extra!, 1/13). Now he’s doing much the same thing for the Wall Street Journal (FAIR.org, 6/28/21).

    After Gordon and Miller dutifully transcribed the fabricated case that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear bomb—a story generated by the office of Vice President Dick Cheney—Cheney was able to go on Meet the Press (NBC, 9/8/02) and issue dire warnings about a nuclear-armed Iraq, citing “a story in the New York Times this morning” (FAIR.org, 3/19/07).

    When UN weapons inspectors failed to find the nonexistent WMDs prior to the invasion, the Times (2/2/03) dismissed the lack of evidence; after all, “nobody seriously expected Mr. Hussein to lead inspectors to his stash of illegal poisons or rockets, or to let his scientists tell all,” correspondent Serge Schmemann reported.

    Times reporter Steven Weisman (2/6/03) praised Colin Powell’s deceptive UN presentation as an “encyclopedic catalog that reached further than many had expected.” A Times editorial (2/6/03) called it “the most powerful case to date that Saddam Hussein stands in defiance of Security Council resolutions and has no intention of revealing or surrendering whatever unconventional weapons he may have.”

    Explaining why journalists didn’t ask President George W. Bush critical questions about the evidence put forward as justification for war, Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller (Baltimore Sun, 3/22/04) later explained, “No one wanted to get into an argument with the president at this very serious time.” (Bumiller is now the TimesWashington bureau chief.)

    Deriding the opposition

    NYT: Some of Intellectual Left's Longtime Doves Taking on Role of Hawks

    The New York Times  (3/14/03) rounded up a bunch of “reluctant hawks”—all of whom had been reluctantly hawkish on the Gulf War 13 years earlier.

    Other New York Times pieces derided the world’s opposition to war, with correspondent Elaine Sciolino (9/15/02) mocking “old French attitudes” like those of President Jacques Chirac, who “made it clear that he doesn’t think it is the business of the world’s powers to oust leaders simply because they are dictators who repress their people.”

    While doing its best to ignore massive protests against the war (FAIR.org, 9/30/02), the Times highlighted supposedly surprising supporters of invasion. Under the headline “Liberals for War: Some of Intellectual Left’s Longtime Doves Taking on Role of Hawks,” Kate Zernike (3/14/03) argued that “as the nation stands on the brink of war, reluctant hawks are declining to join their usual soulmates in marching against war.” It cited seven people by name as “somewhat hesitant backers of military might”—every one of whom is on the record as having supported the 1991 Gulf War.

    On the eve of war, Baghdad correspondent John Burns (3/19/03) declared, “The striking thing was that for many Iraqis, the first American strike could not come too soon.” Burns was the reporter who could glean the feelings of Iraqis about the invasion by viewing them on the street from his hotel room:

    From an 11th-floor balcony of the Palestine Hotel, it was not possible to hear what the driver of the red Mercedes said when he was pulled over halfway down the block, but his gestures conveyed the essence powerfully enough. “Get real,” the driver seemed to be saying. “Look at the sky. Look across the river. The old is giving way to the new.”

    Invasion advocacy

    New York Times cartoon of Saddam Hussein's hidden weapons

    This fantasy of Saddam Hussein’s hidden WMDs (New York Times, 12/28/01) accompanied Richard Perle’s post-9/11 call for an attack on Iraq.

    Things were no better in the opinion section. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman (4/27/03) said after the invasion, invoking Saddam’s repression, “As far as I’m concerned, we do not need to find any weapons of mass destruction to justify this war,” and later (9/18/03) accused France of “becoming our enemy” for opposing the invasion.

    Ex-CIA analyst Kenneth Pollack (New York Times, 2/21/03), who serves at the conservative American Enterprise Institute and was praised by New Yorker editor David Remnick (1/26/03) as the most clear-thinking invasion advocate, wrote that because of Saddam’s “terrifying beliefs about the utility of nuclear weapons, it would be reckless for us to assume that he can be deterred.” While “we must weigh the costs of a war with Iraq today,” Pollack advised, “we must place the cost of a war with a nuclear-armed Iraq tomorrow.”

    Even as the nation was still in shock from the 9/11 attacks, Richard Perle (New York Times, 12/28/01), a prominent neoconservative and then chair of the White House’s Defense Policy Board, demanded action against Iraq, because Saddam maintained an “array of chemical and biological weapons” and was “willing to absorb the pain of a decade-long embargo rather than allow international inspectors to uncover the full magnitude of his program.”

    The Times even gave column space (1/23/03) to then–National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to say “Iraq has a high-level political commitment to maintain and conceal its weapons.”

    It’s no wonder that the Times, despite its liberal reputation, is remembered in antiwar circles as a public relations arm of the Bush administration.

    ‘Bumbling into conflict’

    New York Times: 20 Years On, a Question Lingers About Iraq: Why Did the U.S. Invade?

    “The world may never get a definitive answer” as to why the US invaded Iraq—if it waits for the New York Times (3/18/23).

    Accompanying Rubin’s piece after the jump was an analysis by Max Fisher (3/18/23) and a spread of Iraq War photos (3/18/23). Fisher’s piece, headlined, “Two Decades Later, a Question Remains: Why Did the US Invade?” wondered:

    Was it really, as the George W. Bush administration claimed in the war’s run-up, to neutralize an active Iraqi arsenal of weapons of mass destruction that turned out to not exist?

    Was it over, as the administration heavily implied, suspicions that Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s leader, had been involved in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, which also proved false?

    Was it to liberate Iraqis from Mr. Hussein’s rule and bring democracy to the Middle East, as the administration would later claim?

    Oil? Faulty intelligence? Geopolitical gain? Simple overconfidence? Popular desire for a war, any war, to reclaim national pride? Or, as in conflicts like World War I, mutual miscommunication that sent distrustful states bumbling into conflict?

    “I will go to my grave not knowing that. I can’t answer it,” Richard Haass, a senior State Department official at the time of the invasion, said in 2004 when asked why it had happened.

    Ultimately, Fisher wrote, “The world may never get a definitive answer.” After a lengthy examination of various officials’ and scholars’ thoughts about the question, Fisher concluded that it comes down to “a mix of ideological convictions, psychological biases, process breakdowns and misaligned diplomatic signals.”

    Designed to obfuscate

    George W. Bush with Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld

    George W. Bush’s Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were among the PNAC signatories demanding regime change in Iraq—as were Assistant Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Under Secretary of State John Bolton, the National Security Council’s Elliott Abrams, Cheney chief of staff Scooter Libby and several other Bush administration officials.

    Like Rubin’s piece, Fisher’s piece seems designed to obfuscate any direct accountability for the devastation wrought by the war, leaning heavily on passive constructions and quotes, such as another from Haass: “A decision was not made. A decision happened, and you can’t say when or how.”

    When Fisher asks, “Did the administration sincerely believe its rationale for war, or engineer it as a pretense?,” his conclusion—even after pointing out that the official rationale changed from Saddam Hussein’s purported involvement in 9/11 to his purported secret stash of WMD (and, later, to US democracy promotion)—is that “the record suggests something more banal”: that various senior officials wanted Hussein out “for their own reasons, and then talked one another into believing the most readily available justification.” It’s hard to see how talking each other into false justifications for pre-established goals isn’t far closer to “engineer[ing] it as a pretense” than it is to “sincerely believ[ing] its rationale.”

    Later, Fisher writes, “Few scholars argue that Mr. Bush’s team came into office plotting to invade Iraq and then seized on September 11 as an excuse.” Again, this seems like splitting hairs at best. Fisher had just noted that neoconservatives represented by the Project for a New American Century (PNAC)—who later formed Bush’s inner circle—”now spoke for the Republican Party,” and that as far back as 1998, PNAC insisted that Hussein be removed from power. In a 2000 memo, PNAC suggested this might require “some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor.”

    Fisher’s piece reiterates some of the most prominent myths about the invasion rationale. He claims that during the Clinton administration, “Mr. Hussein had ejected international weapons inspectors”—an error that the New York Times has repeatedly had to correct (2/2/00, 9/17/02, 10/4/03, 10/8/03; FAIR.org, 10/7/03). As news outlets correctly reported at the time but later consistently misrepresented (Extra! Update, 10/02), the UN withdrew its inspectors from Iraq on December 16, 1998, because the United States was preparing to bomb the country.

    Fisher also gives credence to the claim that Saddam Hussein

    overstated his willingness to fight and concealed the paltry state of his weapons programs to appear strong at home and deter the Americans, who had attacked in 1998. But Washington believed him.

    This theory that the Iraq War was caused by Hussein’s “bluffs” is not based on evidence (Extra!, 1–2/04, 5–6/04, 3–4/08), but rather on a desire to blame Iraq for the United States’ refusal to accept its repeated and forceful denials that it had any secret banned weaponry.

    ‘Carried and amplified’

    Real News Network: US Media’s Iraq War Pushers 20 Years On: Where Are They Now? Rich and Influential.

    Adam Johnson (Real News Network, 3/17/23): “Not only have none of the hawks who promoted, cheerled or authorized the criminal invasion of Iraq ever been held accountable, they’ve since thrived: They’ve found success in the media, the speaking circuit, government jobs and cushy think tank gigs.”

    Meanwhile, the only mention in the entire article of corporate media’s role was to acknowledge that the administration’s WMD “claims were carried, and amplified, by America’s major media outlets.”

    Neither anniversary article brought up the burning question: If such a devastating war was based on such faulty information, shouldn’t there be some kind of accountability, not just inside the government but within the press, in order to ensure this never happens again?

    That’s important, because while the New York Post and Fox News, drunk on the post-9/11 sentiment of the time, were able to rally their conservative audience behind the Bush administration, the New York Times‘ fearmongering was key to selling the idea of war to Democrats and centrists from Central Park West to Sunset Boulevard.

    At the time of the invasion, despite the raging street protests, corporate media were unified in cheering for the president’s plan—FAIR found in the lead-up to the war that at four major television news networks, the number of pro-war guests on Iraq segments dwarfed skeptical voices (FAIR.org, 3/18/03). And much of the US public supported the war (Pew Research, 3/19/08). For a decent retrospective on the corporate press’ role in the lead-up to the war, one should glance at Al Jazeera’s Marc Lamont Hill (3/17/23) interviewing Katrina vanden Heuvel (publisher of The Nation), Norman Solomon (of the Institute for Public Accuracy) and former Telegraph commentator Peter Oborne.

    But like the Bush administration, the Times and the rest of the corporate journalists who sold the disastrous war have never faced accountability.


    Research assistance: Conor Smyth

    The post 20 Years Later, NYT Still Can’t Face Its Iraq War Shame appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  • As we continue to look back on the 20th anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, we’re joined by Sami Rasouli, an Iraqi native who immigrated to the United States over 35 years ago and became a successful restaurateur and beloved member of the community in Minneapolis. After the U.S. invasion of his home country in 2003, he moved back to Iraq, where he founded the Muslim Peacemakers…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • March 19–20 marked 20 years since United States forces invaded Iraq. A new report documents the ongoing human, social, economic and environmental toll, reports Brett Wilkins.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • Listen to a reading of this article:

    In order to narrative-manage the public conversation about the Iraq War on the 20th anniversary of the invasion, those who helped unleash that horror upon our world have briefly paused their relentless torrent of “Ukraine proves the hawks were always right” takes to churn out a deluge of “Actually the Iraq War wasn’t based on lies and turned out pretty great after all” takes.

    Council on Foreign Relations chief Richard Haas — who worked in the US State Department under Colin Powell when Bush launched his criminal invasion — got a piece published in Project Syndicate falsely claiming that the US government and his former boss did not lie about weapons of mass destruction, and that “governments can and do get things wrong without lying.”

    Former Bush speechwriter David “Axis of Evil” Frum cooked up a lie-filled spin piece with The Atlantic claiming that “What the U.S. did in Iraq was not an act of unprovoked aggression” and suggesting that perhaps Iraqis are better off as a result of the invasion, or at least no worse off than they would otherwise have been.

    Neoconservative war propagandist Eli Lake, who has been described by journalist Ken Silverstein as “an open and ardent promoter of the Iraq War and the various myths trotted out to justify it,” has an essay published in Commentary with the extraordinary claim that the war “wasn’t the disaster everyone now says it was” and that “Iraq is better off today than it was 20 years ago.”

    But by far the most appalling piece of revisionist war crime apologia that’s come out during the 20th anniversary of the invasion has been an article published in National Review by the genocide walrus himself, John Bolton.

    class=”twitter-tweet” data-width=”550″>

    Lumping everything together as “Iraq War” critics do is a disservice to the careful analysis of what America accomplished, or didn’t. It is not one indivisible, 20-year-long block of granite that can be judged only all or nothing. In fact, the brunt of https://t.co/2lhQ3EnqWWhttps://t.co/964nxyKhS3

    — John Bolton (@AmbJohnBolton) March 17, 2023

    Bolton sets himself apart from his fellow Iraq war architects by arguing that the actual invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein “was close to flawless,” and that the only thing the US did wrong was fail to kill more people and topple the government of Iran.

    Bolton criticizes “the Bush administration’s failure to take advantage of its substantial presence in Iraq and Afghanistan to seek regime change in between, in Iran,” writing that “we had a clear opportunity to empower Iran’s opposition to depose the ayatollahs.”

    “Unfortunately, however, as was the case after expelling Saddam from Kuwait in 1991, the United States stopped too soon,” Bolton writes.

    Bolton claims that the notoriously cruel sanctions that were inflicted upon Iraq between 1991 and 2003 were too lenient, saying there should have been “crushing sanctions” that were “enforced cold-bloodedly”.

    As Reason’s Eric Boehm notes in his own critique of Bolton’s essay, perhaps the most galling part is where Bolton dismisses any responsibility the US might have for the consequences and fallout from the Iraq invasion, attempting to compartmentalize the “flawless” initial invasion away from all the destabilization and human suffering which followed by saying “they did not inevitably, inexorably, deterministically, and unalterably flow from the decision to invade and overthrow.”

    “Whatever Bush’s batting average in post-Saddam decisions (not perfect, but respectable, in my view), it is separable, conceptually and functionally, from the invasion decision. The subsequent history, for good or ill, cannot detract from the logic, fundamental necessity, and success of overthrowing Saddam,” Bolton writes.

    This is self-evidently absurd. A Bush administration warmonger arguing that you can’t logically connect the invasion to its aftereffects is like an arsonist saying you can’t logically connect his lighting a fire in the living room to the incineration of the entire house. He’s just trying to wave off any accountability for that war and his role in it.

    “One might suspect that Bolton imagines a world where actions should not have consequences because he’s been living in exactly that type of world for the past two decades,” Boehm writes. “Somehow, he’s retained his Washington status as a foreign policy expert, media commentator, and presidential advisor despite having been so horrifically wrong about Iraq.”

    class=”twitter-tweet” data-width=”550″>

    It takes a special kind of hubris and a serious shortage of respect for the lives of other human beings to sit here, in the year 2023, and argue that the real problem with America's post-9/11 wars is that *they didn't go far enough.*

    My latest @Reason: https://t.co/5gd4kH83Fb

    — Eric Boehm (@EricBoehm87) March 20, 2023

    And that to me is what’s the most jaw-dropping about all this. Not that John Bolton still in the year 2023 thinks the invasion of Iraq was a great idea and should have gone much further, but that the kind of psychopath who would say such a thing is still a prominent news media pundit who is platformed by the most influential outlets in the world for his “expertise”.

    It’s actually a completely damning indictment of all western media if you think about it, and really of our entire civilization. The fact that an actual, literal psychopath whose entire goal in life is to try to get as many people killed by violence as he possibly can at every opportunity is routinely given columns and interviews in The Washington Post, and is regularly brought on CNN as an expert analyst, proves our entire society is diseased.

    To be clear, when I say that John Bolton is a psychopath, I am not using hyperbole to make a point. I am simply voicing the only logical conclusion that one can come to when reading reports about things like how he threatened the children of the OPCW chief whose successful diplomatic efforts in early 2002 were making the case for invasion hard to build, or how he spent weeks verbally abusing a terrified woman in her hotel room, pounding on her door and screaming obscenities at her.

    class=”twitter-tweet” data-width=”550″>

    “We Know Where Your Kids Live” John Bolton threatened head of chemical weapons commission as part of effort launch war against Iraq https://t.co/p8uluxbWGH

    — WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) April 2, 2018

    And that’s just Bolton’s personality. The actual policies he has worked to push through, sometimes successfully, are far more horrifying. This is the freak who has argued rabidly for the bombing of Iran, for bombing North Korea, for attacking Cuba over nonexistent WMD, for assassinating Gaddafi, and many other acts of war. Who helped cover up the Iran-Contra scandal, who openly admitted to participating in coups against foreign governments, and who tried to push Trump into starting a war with Iran during his terrifying stint as his National Security Advisor.

    This man is a monster who belongs in a cage, but instead he’s one of the most influential voices in the most powerful country on earth. This is because we are ruled by a giant globe-spanning empire that is held together by the exact sort of murderous ideology that John Bolton promotes.

    Bolton is not elevated at maximum amplification in spite of his psychopathic bloodlust, but exactly because of it. That’s the sort of civilization we live in, and that’s the sort of media environment that westerners are forming their worldviews inside of. We are ruled by murderous tyrants, and we are propagandized into accepting their murderousness by mass media which elevate bloodthirsty psychos like John Bolton as part of that propaganda.

    That’s the world we live in. That’s what we’re up against here.

    class=”twitter-tweet” data-width=”550″>

    "The Iraq War was a national undertaking. Its broad domestic support owed in large measure to its advancement of the vital interests of state, as those were understood in relation to America’s stake in a decent and durable global order." https://t.co/6e08quvk7L

    — Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) March 18, 2023

    And that’s why they’ve been working so hard to rewrite the history on Iraq. They need us to accept Iraq as either a greater good that came at a heavy price or a terrible mistake that will never be repeated, so that they can lead us into more horrific wars in the future.

    We are being paced. Until now, “Iraq” has been a devastating one-word rebuttal to both the horror and failure of US interventionism. The essays these imperial spinmeisters have been churning out are the early parlay in a long-game effort to take away that word’s historical meaning and power. Don’t let them shift it even an inch.

    _________________

    My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, throwing some money into my tip jar on PatreonPaypal, or Substack, buying an issue of my monthly zine, and following me on FacebookTwitterSoundcloud or YouTube. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

  • Today, Iraqis mark the 20th anniversary of the horrific U.S.-U.K. bombing of Baghdad, dubbed “Shock and Awe.” In rapid succession, “coalition forces” dropped 3,000 bombs, including many that weighed 2,000 pounds, on Baghdad in what The New York Times called “almost biblical power.” Although they launched an illegal war of aggression and committed war crimes in Iraq, 20 years later the leaders of…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • At around 5:30 a.m. local time in Baghdad on March 20, 2003, air raid sirens were heard in Baghdad as the U.S. invasion began. Within the hour, President George W. Bush gave a nationally televised speech from the Oval Office announcing the war had begun. The attack came on the false pretext that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction, and despite worldwide protest…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.