Here Is Something You Can’t Understand


Cypress Hill:

Targeted Bombing Spares Civilians and Parked Cars

From the New American:

The man who just singlehandedly committed the United States to war against Libya, President Barack Obama, told the Boston Globe in 2007:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

Time for Some Action

The contest of wills between the United States of America and the sovereign nation of Libya go back to a time before Libya was a sovereign nation.  Of course, prior to 1951, it had been hundreds of years since Libya was sovereign.  Before the various Back when Libya was a colony of the Italians in the 1930’s and 1940’s, Americans had a cozy relationship with these new Romans in North Africa.

When the new Romans were deposed by the new Arabs in North Africa, the United States established a cozy relationship with the al-Senussi family.  The cozy relationship included a military base which served various purposes from training to facilitating regional operations.  The cozy relationship also included an economic side when Esso (aka Exxon) found oil in the deserts of Western Libya.

The monarch leading Libya in the 1950’s and 1960’s did not believe in “spreading the wealth.”  Like his European benefactors and protectors, he concentrated the wealth in the hands of the few and sowed the seeds of discontent at home.  The monarch eventually became ill and sought medical attention in Greece.  While he was away in 1969, the man who has come to be known as the world’s bloodiest, meanest, cruelest, evilest-est dictator since Donald Rumsfeld’s drinking buddy Saddam Hussein, led a bloodless coup replacing the monarch.

Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein

According to another former senior State Department official, Saddam, while only in his early 20s, became a part of a U.S. plot to get rid of Qasim. According to this source, Saddam was installed in an apartment in Baghdad on al-Rashid Street directly opposite Qasim’s office in Iraq’s Ministry of Defense, to observe Qasim’s movements.

Adel Darwish, Middle East expert and author of “Unholy Babylon,” said the move was done “with full knowledge of the CIA,” and that Saddam’s CIA handler was an Iraqi dentist working for CIA and Egyptian intelligence. U.S. officials separately confirmed Darwish’s account.

Darwish said that Saddam’s paymaster was Capt. Abdel Maquid Farid, the assistant military attaché at the Egyptian Embassy who paid for the apartment from his own personal account. Three former senior U.S. officials have confirmed that this is accurate.

The assassination was set for Oct. 7, 1959, but it was completely botched. Accounts differ. One former CIA official said that the 22-year-old Saddam lost his nerve and began firing too soon, killing Qasim’s driver and only wounding Qasim in the shoulder and arm. Darwish told UPI that one of the assassins had bullets that did not fit his gun and that another had a hand grenade that got stuck in the lining of his coat.

Just a Fraction of Friction

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi did two things that made him an enemy of the West — and neither of those things involved violence or murder.  First, he demanded that the United States surrender the military base it held.  He didn’t demand an immediate surrender.  A negotiated time table was set, and unlike Guantanamo Bay, the United States ceded this sovereign territory to the nation to whom it rightfully belonged.  (They would come back later to bomb the base, but that’s another story.)  Second, he nationalized businesses industries in which Western firms sought to extract enormous profits at the expense of the indigenous population.  Oil was nationalized in 1973.  And, he threatened to do so again in 2009.

For these actions, the United States and the UK commissioned a small group of soldiers under the leadership of a 6’6″ Scottish soldier to assassinate Muammar Gaddafi.  Stirling’s legacy, apart from the unsuccessful assassination attempt, was creating small tactical groups that conducted covert, quick and decisive raids on targets (personnel, installations, military units, etc.) that resulted in devastating impacts.   Stirling’s attempt on Gaddafi was more than a decade before the bombing of the Berlin disco.  It was almost two decades before the bombing of Flight 103 in Lockerbie, Scotland – the ancestral home of David Stirling, the man who plotted to kill the colonel in 1970.

Colonel Archibald David Stirling - Master Mercenary

As oil revenues accrued to Libya, much of that revenue was funneled into national development projects and the establishment of a stronger military apparatus.  With the US giving $% billion per year to Israel and a comparable sum to the authoritarian regime of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, Libya sought to ensure the stability and security of its interests within its borders.

In the mid-1980s, Miles Copeland, a veteran CIA operative, told UPI the CIA had enjoyed “close ties” with Qasim’s ruling Baath Party, just as it had close connections with the intelligence service of Egyptian leader Gamel Abd Nassar. In a recent public statement, Roger Morris, a former National Security Council staffer in the 1970s, confirmed this claim, saying that the CIA had chosen the authoritarian and anti-communist Baath Party “as its instrument.”

Moreover, Libya sought the assistance of the former Soviet Union in achieving these aims.  Gaddafi is no Communist.  Never has been.  The Soviets had technology that met the needs of the Libyans; and the United States government (working at the behest of firms like Exxon and others) sought only to subvert the regime and restore the appropriations relationship over Libyan resources which obtained since 1911.

Libya, like the United States, UK, and Israel, engaged in proxy fights in Europe and elsewhere intended to influence the land crisis in Palestine.  Western and Israeli forces typically relied on mercenary forces trained in covert operations.  Libyan and pro-Palestinian supporters typically relied on urban and infrastructure attacks in Western cities.  Neither “side” was able to significantly impact the resolution of the land question in Palestine.  It remains as intractable as ever, however, Gaddafi’s engagement on the question permitted him to be branded by Western media as an enemy.

Conquerors with Long Memories and Short Sticks

In order to grant some moral cover to the unified actions of the United States, the UK and France, some external non-European support was required.  The African Union was of no use.  That group voted against approving a no-fly zone over Libya.  Only the so-called Arab League (or more properly, the League of Arab States) endorsed such an action.  It is somewhat paradoxical that this entity, of whom its four largest member states are all in Africa (Egypt, Sudan, Algeria, Morocco) would vote against other independent African nations and with the West.  The 22-member League is a curious collection of states that have only once selected a non-Egyptian to serve as Secretary General.  The Egyptians, of course, have had a long-standing relationship with the West, particularly the US and the UK.

(More to follow)

Lebensraum: A Tale of Two Gulfs

“I didn’t have to blast him, but I did anyway!

Ha! Ha!  Punk had to pay.

So I just killed a man.”

– Cypress Hill, “How I Could Just Kill a Man” (1991)

In 1973, before the Libyan leader had been labeled as a sponsor of international terrorism, he sought to extend the international recognition of the territorial waters to the 300-mile expanse of the  Gulf of Sidra.  Libya’s claim did not meet the established international standard of the time and was rejected by the US.  It is worth noting, however, given the US’ use of international power, if the situations and contexts were reversed, the US would have disregarded this provision as well.  The unique boundaries of Western European states (not to mention their proximity) and the historical maturation of the United States suggest the international accord around territorial limits is indeed subjective.

In 1981, Ronald Reagan put the Sixth Fleet on maneuvers in the Gulf of Sidra to close the question of territorial access within the Gulf of Sidra.  The question was closed, at least until 1989, when Libyan fighter jets were downed over the Gulf (with no reported loss of life).  The waters remained open for international shipping and the Colonel’s “line of death” became nothing more than an artifact of history.

From the Wikipedia entry on territorial waters:

From the eighteenth century until the mid twentieth century, the territorial waters of the British Empire, the United States, France and many other nations were three nautical miles (5.6 km) wide. Originally, this was the length of a cannon shot, hence the portion of an ocean that a sovereign state could defend from shore. However, Iceland claimed two nautical miles (3.7 km), Norway and Sweden claimed four nautical miles (7.4 km), and Spain claimed 6 nautical miles (11 km; 6.9 mi) during this period. During incidents such as nuclear weapons testing and fisheries disputes some nations arbitrarily extended their maritime claims to as much as fifty or even two hundred nautical miles. Since the late 20th century the “12 mile limit” has become almost universally accepted. The United Kingdom extended its territorial waters from three to twelve nautical miles (22 km) in 1987.

In 1999, under President Bill Clinton, the United States claimed an additional 12 mile contiguous zone.  Vice-President Al Gore issued the following statement, excerpted here:

Under international law, a nation can claim a territorial sea up to 12 nautical miles from its coast, and a contiguous zone extending an additional 12 miles. Within the contiguous zone, a nation can act to prevent violations of its environmental, customs, fiscal, or immigration laws, or to apprehend vessels suspected of violating them.

Within the extended contiguous zone, the Coast Guard may now board and search a foreign vessel suspected of smuggling drugs, carrying illegal immigrants, polluting the ocean, or tampering with sunken ships or other underwater artifacts, without first obtaining permission from the country where the vessel is registered. Previously, such action could be taken only within 12 miles of the coast.

“With this new enforcement tool, we can better protect America’s working families against drug trafficking, illegal immigration, and threats to our ocean environment,” the Vice President said. “We are putting would-be smugglers and polluters on notice that we will do everything in our power to protect our waters and our shores.”

Clinton sought to protect American interests in and around the Gulf of Mexico.  Libra, presently, claims no contiguous zones extending beyond its territorial waters.

Berlin Smoke Screen

On 5 April 1986, a woman delivered an explosive device to a night club in Berlin.  The bomb killed three US soldiers.  Immediately, the US charged the Libyan government with the bombing.  Ten days later, the US bombed the Libyan cities of Tripoli and Benghazi.  The two-year old adopted daughter of Colonel Gaddafi was killed during this American attack.  Back in Berlin, an arrest from far from imminent.  Swift and certain retribution came in 10 days.  Justice would wait for 10 years; no one was arrested until 1996.  Among those arrested were two Libyan nationals, a Palestinian man, and a Lebanese man and his German wife.  The United States did not seek sanctions from Germany or extract concessions from Germany based on the complicity of their nationals.

In an odd twist, only the German woman, Verena Chanaa, was convicted of murder.  You’ll have to pardon the BBC for making it look as if the Arabs did it. And, perhaps you could even forgive the US secret service and the German secret service for failing to support the investigation…after all, soldiers are expendable and their deaths were not in vain.  The judge did not see it that way:

The judge said prosecutors had failed to prove that the attack was planned on the personal orders of Colonel Gaddafi, partly because of the lack of co-operation from Western secret services.

But he said the bombing had been planned by members of the Libyan secret service and workers at the Libyan embassy in East Berlin.

The judge criticised the “limited willingness” of German and US secret services to provide evidence.

It was one of the “disappointments” of the trial, he said.

The United States government has been accused by its own citizens of orchestrating the demolition of the World Trade Center facility and attacking the Pentagon.  These allegations will persist until such time as there is full disclosure.  So it is in Berlin.  The American corporate media closed the case, as did much of the public.  However, the court record remains, as do these questions.

  • Why were the governments of the United States and Germany uncooperative?
  • Why were neither of these governments, with all of their police and investigative resources, unable to return a verdict of murder against four Arabs?
  • Why did the national and international media hide the photograph of Verena Chanaa?  Why is she not the face of international terrorism?
  • What was the role of the US’ Central Intelligence Agency in the bombing?
  • What was the role of Mossad, the Israeli espionage agency?
  • Were the Libyans on the payroll of the CIA?
  • Was their charge to obtain evidence of authorization from Colonel Gaddafi?
  • Were they authorized by the CIA to proceed with the hopes of obtaining corroboration after the fact?

Answers to these fundamental questions should be a prerequisite for a war declaration or a unilateral attack by a hawkish president with a nice jump shot.  What are the facts on the ground and what is the evidence.  When the United States bombed Benghazi and Tripoli in 1986, killing the Colonel’s daughter, they had yet to build a compelling case for their naked aggression.  They did, however, establish a pretext.

Lockerbie Illusion

From The Scotsman in 2005:

A FORMER Scottish police chief has given lawyers a signed statement claiming that key evidence in the Lockerbie bombing trial was fabricated.
The retired officer – of assistant chief constable rank or higher – has testified that the CIA planted the tiny fragment of circuit board crucial in convicting a Libyan for the 1989 mass murder of 270 people.

The officer, who was a member of the Association of Chief Police Officers Scotland, is supporting earlier claims by a former CIA agent that his bosses “wrote the script” to incriminate Libya…

Last night, George Esson, who was Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway when Megrahi was indicted for mass murder, confirmed he was aware of the development.

But Esson, who retired in 1994, questioned the officer’s motives. He said: “Any police officer who believed they had knowledge of any element of fabrication in any criminal case would have a duty to act on that. Failure to do so would call into question their integrity, and I can’t help but question their motive for raising the matter now.”

Other important questions remain unanswered, such as how the officer learned of the alleged conspiracy and whether he was directly involved in the inquiry. But sources close to Megrahi’s legal team believe they may have finally discovered the evidence that could demolish the case against him.

An insider told Scotland on Sunday that the retired officer approached them after Megrahi’s appeal – before a bench of five Scottish judges – was dismissed in 2002.

The insider said: “He said he believed he had crucial information. A meeting was set up and he gave a statement that supported the long-standing rumours that the key piece of evidence, a fragment of circuit board from a timing device that implicated Libya, had been planted by US agents…

The vital evidence that linked the bombing of Pan Am 103 to Megrahi was a tiny fragment of circuit board which investigators found in a wooded area many miles from Lockerbie months after the atrocity.

The fragment was later identified by the FBI’s Thomas Thurman as being part of a sophisticated timer device used to detonate explosives, and manufactured by the Swiss firm Mebo, which supplied it only to Libya and the East German Stasi.

At one time, Megrahi, a Libyan intelligence agent, was such a regular visitor to Mebo that he had his own office in the firm’s headquarters.

The fragment of circuit board therefore enabled Libya – and Megrahi – to be placed at the heart of the investigation. However, Thurman was later unmasked as a fraud who had given false evidence in American murder trials, and it emerged that he had little in the way of scientific qualifications.

Then, in 2003, a retired CIA officer gave a statement to Megrahi’s lawyers in which he alleged evidence had been planted.

Friends, Enemies, and Money

Time, Newsweek and the New York Times may have railed against the Colonel, but not everyone was mad at him.  Halliburton engaged the Libyan government in 1984 on a construction contract to build aquifers delivering water from the Libyan desert to the coast.  The contract was valued at $25 billion and was fulfilled through a foreign subsidiary due to sanctions imposed by the US government on Libya.

Keeping Score

If you’re keeping score, it’s US 5, Libya 2.  The actions of the United States and its paid operatives include Stirling’s assassination attempt in 1970; the 1986 disco bombing in Berlin by a non-Arab German woman; the explosion of the flight over Scotland and the planting of evidence by an agent of the FBI; and, the “retaliatory” bombing in 1986 in Libya, which killed 15 people including the adopted two-year daughter of Colonel Gaddafi.  In addition to these actions, the United States twice

Libya’s actions, as recorded by Western

Libya initiated, prior to the demise of the former Soviet Union, a program to obtain nuclear energy and weapons.  twice initiated conflicts in the Gulf of Sidra (1981 and 1989),








Afghanistan: Opium Killing Fields

Increase opium production? Check.
Increase international heroin sales? Check.
Kill civilians to keep sharp? Check.
Carry out mission with impunity? Check.
Carry out mission without scrutiny? Check.

Some folks are begging for an ass-kicking.  Do not complain when it comes to a subway station or bus stop near you.

Be as quiet as you are – right now.

Somalian Piracy: Overstated Threat?

From Voice of America News:

While the piracy problem off the Somali coast is getting a lot of media attention, exactly how big a threat to maritime safety do the pirates pose?

John Patch is an associate professor for strategic intelligence at the US Army War College and a retired Navy surface warfare officer and career intelligence officer. He’s written an article – appearing on the US Naval Institute website – on Somali piracy. His comments are not to be taken as official US government policy.

In an interview with VOA English to Africa Service reporter Joe De Capua, he says the Somali piracy problem may be overstated.

“Even with the incident of a US-flagged vessel taken, there’s quite a lot of hype involved. World opinion and sometimes US opinion as well is often driven by passion, incidents of the moment and US pride. And we’ve got to be careful about formulating policy on those kinds of things,” he says.

Do statistics support an increase in Somali piracy activity? Commander Patch says, “Are the numbers up, numbers down? That’s kind of debatable. The data behind the actual seizures is very varied. For example, if they have an approach by a small boat in the middle of the night, sometimes, with no actual piracy incident, that’s still counted as an incident…. I’m not so sure that piracy is actually escalating out of control right now. My sense is, with the naval task force in the Gulf of Aden escorting daily many, many ships with safe passages, you’ve got to compare the number of piracy incidents to the actual safe passages and you’ll see that the instances are still very low.”

The question, now, is whether or not there is an active CIA presence in this region that is seeking to establish a US mandate for extending AFRICOM and validating a military presence in the horn.

Just across the Gulf of Aden, a stones throw from Somalia, sits the Port of Aden.  Fifty years ago, it was home to the LARGEST RAF AIR BASE IN THE WORLD outside of the British Isles.  Why?  Because the UK required air coverage for naval vessels engaged in the shipment of oil.

Is today’s conflagration more than an outgrowth of a Somali response to the indignation of Europeans stealing fish from children and dumping nuclear and hospital waste in pristine waters?

The CIA has actively pursued an policy of increased information with NGO’s.  In fact, the sources of funding for NGO’s often comes indirectly from entities with a commitment to extending the military surveillance of various regions with geopolitical significance.  There has been some resistance, but if you’ve ever traveled internationally, you know that State Department types, ex-military types and other persons with a capital interest in subverting sovereign rights are all over the hotel lobbies, resorts and beaches.

Perhaps this latest series of incidents is no more than the latest American creation — like the sinking of the USS Maine, the Gulf of Tonkin, the Bay of Pigs, and the Search for Weapons of Mass Distraction.

The Long Con of William Jefferson Clinton: Part I

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.

The art of the con lies in several factors: the sophistication and cool of the con man; the grandiosity of the scheme (if it’s big enough, no one will believe it’s actually being contemplated); and the ability to sustain plausible deniability amid suspicion. Former American president, William Jefferson Clinton is presently engaged in one of the greatest cons in recent memory. This con will continue whether or not his wife rises to the office of President of the United States. This con is grand and includes the active collaboration of the current president George W. Bush, his father and former president George H.W. Bush, the world’s two richest men – Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, and a host of others. This con is about the future of the nation, about oil, energy and the silencing of 40 million persons with a critically vested interest in the outcome. This con is about the historical positioning and vulnerability of Black elected officials. This con is about the use of long range planning to achieve an aim which is imperceptible to the naked eye.

STAGING – Horatio Alger Goes to Washington

The primary actor in this game burst on the American scene as a rags-to-riches, “Where’s my daddy?”, Rhodes scholar from Arkansas. He was not quite the rube which George Bush has chosen to put on display for the American public. Nonetheless, he arrived in the public consciousness as a flawed man with poverty and abandonment and achievement in his dossier. Clinton never attempted to appear less than intelligent, but he did seek to connect with “the masses” through his tone and mannerisms. He was not the first choice when the presidential campaign of 1992 began, but he managed to put himself in position to win. Clinton connected with people. He looked them in the eye – an essential tool of the con man, and he seduced them. He’s still got it. He grasped and extended a conversational template mapped by the Georgian peanut farmer, James Earl Carter. Clinton would become only the second President elected from the deep South in generations. His successor would masquerade as the third. George W. Bush, born in Connecticut, graduate of Exeter, Yale and Harvard donned the mask of a Texas tonto to delude Americans into embracing the public version of their dumbed down selves. It has worked masterfully. Few Americans question W’s stupidity, even though the likelihood of such a thing borders on the absurd. It is assumed that there is abundant evidence of his mindlessness – and yet, it should seem impossible that the son of a man who led both the FBI and CIA could be such an empty vessel. There is no question that accomplished men can give birth to less gifted children, but an honest look at the current president suggests he’s far smarter than the pundits who ridicule his every move.

Bill Clinton is cut from the same cloth – the cloth of deep deception. Moreover, he now enjoys close, public relations (albeit not sexual relations) with the Bush family and its reigning patriarch. Bill Clinton and George Herbert Walker Bush are now bosom buddies.


No!! Closer.


No!!! Closer!!


No, no, no! Closer!


Too close!!!


Okay. That’s it. The driver and the rider – doing what a good Scottish boy should do…riding around on the links seeking counsel with a wise elder.

Of course, the nation was first given a glimpse of this surprisingly dangerous liaison in the aftermath of the levee collapse in the city of New Orleans. The collapse of levees, after continuous underfunding by the Bush 43 administration, flooded the historic Ninth Ward and much of the city subsequent to the landfall of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Bush the Elder and Bill Clinton then embarked on an international philanthropic tour to demonstrate the bi-partisan commitment of the United States of America to provide relief to those impacted by natural disasters. These two even had the generosity of spirit to fundraise for the victims of the tsunami in Asia. Of course the United States government could only pull together a measly $15M. W’s piss is worth more than $15 million. It remains unclear exactly what these two were doing aside from “priming the mark.”

The Mark – Black America

Marks are the targets of confidence games. Marks, not unlike persons in those infamous words attributed to P.T. Barnum, are born every minute. Skeptics are also born every minute. In our world, in order to overcome the tenacious work of a skeptic, a con man must dream big dreams. If it is true that you cannot steal from an honest man, then a con man must offer the world in order to entice not merely the larcenous petty criminal, but the unwitting crowd BEHIND that larcenous petty criminal. This is precisely the appeal of Three Card Monte. Pay particular attention to the final trick in the video – it’s the real deal.

For years, William Jefferson Clinton has mislead the world, and most notably esteemed Black authors, into believing that he was an ally of the black folk, and more specifically a friend of the black elected official. Some people believe he has earned the lifelong respect and fidelity of Black America. For some, the basis of that opinion is tied his policy prescriptions while in office. For others, the opinion is based on his manner of dealing with and communicating to Black persons, elected and unelected. There are still others who can recall the personal battles waged by Mr. Clinton on the road to and through the White House. There is one problem, however, with every bit of this analysis. It ignores the single greatest fact of life as a political Democrat since 1960. The road to the White House goes through Black America. No Democrat can win the highest office in the land without the energetic and vigorous support of Black Americans, period.

The Democratic Party can always find candidates, but cannot always find men or women whose message, tenor and history invite the support of Black folks. Prior to seeking national office, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson, James Earl Carter and William Jefferson Clinton all managed to secure the energetic and vigorous support of Black Americans. Each was elected to the highest office in the land. There have been a slew of other candidates like Walter Mondale, Al Gore and John Kerry who have run unsuccessfully and may have garnered high percentages of the Black vote – but they NEVER secured the energetic and vigorous support of Black America. Each of those candidates lost. Bill Clinton was well aware of the centrality of the Black vote when he sought office in 1992. He was also aware of the predispositions of black elected officials when he sought office. Though it’s been said many times, many ways, it may have been best said by a Marxist, integrationist with whom I share a few opinions (Manning Marable):

“Effective block voting for white capitalist candidates certainly changed the results of these presidential elections, but it did not represent any meaningful increase in Black political power. During Kennedy’s first two years in office, he issued a mild executive order banning discrimination in federally-financed housing [constructed subsequent to the implementation of the order], but did nothing directly to assist the civil rights social movement. Carter proved to be an even greater disappointment. Richard Hatcher (former mayor of Gary, Indiana) even admitted, “Now it’s difficult for any Black leader who pushed the election of Jimmy Carter to face the people he’s campaigned with.”

What Richard Hatcher did not say in this particular instance was that it did not matter to James Earl Carter how difficult it may have been for him to face his people. Carter had made the ascent. The same was true of Kennedy. He repeatedly urged the very people who put him in office to postpone their petitions for justice. None of this is surprising because the party of the Dixiecrat evolved into a plantation, of sorts. The options available to Black voters and candidates in the 20th century, according to Marable, had two only dimensions. In the first instance, Blacks ran candidates along third-party platforms (either in all-Black parties or in socialist/liberal parties in collaboration with whites). In the second instance, Blacks consolidated votes around white candidates when the broader American polity was split. Well for the larger Democratic party, the first instance hardly warranted a comment. And, the second instance was precisely what was desired. Bill Clinton knew this in 1992 – and he knows that his wife faces a wholly unique and unprecedented moment in 2008. More on that later.

Black America has been the mark of American political parties for decades. The Democrats have worked with indefatigable ardor to maintain their stranglehold on reliable votes. The black elected official, by and large, contributes to this intractable dilemma by pursuing two courses of action: 1) failing to devise viable national campaigns for the highest office in the land (with the notable exceptions of 1984 and 2008); and 2) failing to build the political knowledge, acumen and effectiveness of their constituents. It is precisely these two failings which contribute to the vacuums of vision in the Democratic Party where candidates like Paul Tsongas, Walter Mondale, Al Gore, John Kerry fill the breach as “the lesser of two evils” and allow arch-Republicans like Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush to seize the apparatus of the state. In other words, what is the point of being in the Democratic Party if you’re going to defer to folks like Gore and Kerry? Could you not simply resign from office and stay home? Bill Clinton understood that a Democrat who would be President had to seize the day. He couldn’t be a pushover like Gore or Kerry or Mondale or Dukakis. I remain unconvinced that any of those four actually WANTED to be President. Clinton clearly did and he hit his mark. In more ways than one.

The Stakes: Africa, Oil, the Dollar and $500 Billion

On his way out the door, Dwight Eisenhower had the following message for his fellow citizens.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

I didn’t like Ike. The United States of America, under the leadership of Dwight Eisenhower played a role in the death of one of Africa’s most important freedom fighters, Patrice Lumumba. I will not recap that story here, but it is always worth noting whenever devils like Eisenhower’s name must be mentioned. Our enemies are our enemies – regardless of whom they have as friends.

Bill Clinton’s stake in all of this is very simple. It goes like this:

  1. The United States of America has a protection arrangement with the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia. The arrangement, negotiated by the Bush family, ensures that Saudi oil prices and its currency are pegged to the deflating dollar. In exchange for this iron clad reinforcement on the US deflationary currency, the US provides unconditional military support for Saudi Arabia. The deflating dollar essentially allows the US to tax every nation whose central bank retains large amounts of deflating dollars. Exhibit A: China. Exhibit B: Japan.
  2. The US, while committed to this relationship with Saudi Arabia, will continue to diversify sources of energy to ensure an adequate supply for domestic uses and to ensure price stability by limiting supplies to China, Japan, India and other nations.
  3. The next region with large supplies of untapped oil for the United States to claim is Africa.
  4. The US is embroiled in a power grab in Iraq and Iran. Saddam Hussein was a former partner in this arrangement, but apparently sought a unilateral renegotiation. Neither Kuwait nor independence from dollar hegemony were on the table for consideration. Hussein either ceased to care about or simply misunderstood the seriousness of his blood oath. Iran, of course, is seeking to liberate itself from the clutches of the West, but will be increasingly isolated in coming years. Having securing alliances with a nuclear Saudi Arabia and a nuclear Pakistan (to say nothing of a nuclear Israel), the US’ interests in the regions will be secure within five to ten years.
  5. Competitors in Europe will resent and resist intrusions into Africa, their former colonies, without a solid cover story and unfettered domestic support. They are likely to resist anyway, but domestic support among the white majority must be consolidated around a humanitarian cover.

The Cover Story – Emerging Infectious Diseases

This is a long con. It’s not a short con. The long con takes years and years to unfold. Of course, in the grand scheme of history, this is a relatively short con – but with respect to terms of office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, this is a truly long con. In the past fifteen years, there have been two massive genocidal events on the continent of Africa. The United States of America has not intervened in any way shape or form in either event: Rwanda in the 1990’s and today in Congo. The government of the United States does not, has not, and will not have an authentic humanitarian interest in Africa. How will “emerging infectious diseases” become a cornerstone of American foreign policy in Africa? Simple. It already has.

Nicolas King, in Security, Disease, Commerce: Ideologies of Postcolonial Global Health (Social Studies of Science, Vol. 32, No. 5/6, pp. 763-789) writes of the emergence of a “worldview” as far back as 1989 at the National Institutes of Health and Rockefeller University. In May of that year, these entities co-sponsored a conference on “emerging viruses” and the selected experts included Robert E. Shope, Joshua Lederberg and Alfred S. Evans. According to King, Shope and Lederberg would carve out leading spaces at the table in defining this issue. In 1992, they authored Emerging Infections: Microbial Threats to Health in the United States. The report argued that the US was no longer insulated from the international threat of viruses…that global interdependence, modern transportation, trade and changing social and cultural patterns were all bases for the threat. For King (who provides far more detail than space allows here), these scholarly formulations echoed the old colonial frameworks of a century ago. Moreover, these works suggested a new basis for Western intrusions into Africa, Asia and Latin America.

Quoting from King:

“To address this risk, the report recommended the expansion and financial support of public health infrastructure in four areas: epidemiological surveillance of outbreaks and infectious diseases and the emergence of antimicrobial resistance; training and basic research in molecular biology and virology; public and private development of vaccines and therapeutic drugs; and the strengthening and coordination between local, national and international public health institutions.”

He adds later in his paper:

“Determining exactly how and why the emerging diseases worldview had such widespread appeal is beyond the scope of this paper, but one of the most prominent strategies employed by its backers was explicitly to associate infectious diseases with American economic and security interests. Doing so allowed campaigners to make a case for federal funding not only through traditional health institutions, but also to take advantage of ‘trickle down’ funding through the Defense Department.”

As it happens, “in June 1996, President Clinton issued a Presidential Decision Directive calling for a more focused US policy on infectious diseases. The State Department’s Strategic Plan for International Affairs lists protecting human health and reducing the spread of infectious diseases as US strategic goals,and Secretary Albright in December 1999 announced the second of two major U.S. initiatives to combat HIV/AIDS. The unprecedented UN Security Council session devoted exclusively to the threat to Africa from HIV/AIDS in January 2000 is a measure of the international community’s concern about the infectious disease threat.” (Global Infectious Disease Threat and Its Implications for the United States. January 2000 National Intelligence Estimate). Oddly enough, the 1996 Presidential Decision Directive was announced by the Vice President, Al Gore. This is the same Al Gore who founded the internet, led the fight to end global warming and sat silent on the floor on the United States Senate as Black elected officials stood on his behalf and on behalf of the disenfranchised voters in Florida who delivered the popular vote to the Democratic nominee in 2000. It’s the same Al Gore who has presented himself as a disinterested arbiter of a pending dispute between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton over the nomination of the party in 2008.

The 1996 PDD set six policy goals and established 8 new U.S. government roles and responsibilities. Perhaps most importantly of all, it EXPANDED the MANDATE of the United States Department of Defense. Looking back to Nicolas King’s research, we find that a public health policy paper written in 1992 advocated for epidemiological surveillance. Under Bill Clinton, the Department of Defenses’ mission was simply expanded to include surveillance – among other things. Consider this, the first new government role and responsibility:

“The Federal government, in cooperation with State and local governments, international organizations, the private sector, and public health, medical and veterinary communities, will establish a national and international electronic network for surveillance and response regarding emerging infectious diseases.”

There isn’t a single word about international governments such as those on the ground in Zambia, Uganda, Tanzania or South Africa. There is, however, a great deal about likely coordination between, for example, the Federal government, the State of Florida or the State of Texas and the local government of the city of New York or the city of Chicago, and private sector firms like GlaxoSmithKline and public health communities like the NIH or even international organizations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Each of these disparate entities is to have a role in establishing a national and international electronic network to surveil and respond to emerging infectious diseases.

Consider that the 2nd of three bullets, under the 8th and FINAL item calls for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to “continue to address the root causes of emerging diseases through its ongoing portfolio of assistance to developing countries.”

The final bullet expands the mission of the Department of Defense to include “support of global surveillance, training, research, and response to emerging infectious disease threats. DoD will strengthen its global disease reduction efforts through: centralized coordination, improved preventive health programs and epidemiological capabilities; and enhanced involvement with military treatment facilities and United States and overseas laboratories.” This isn’t much to hang your hat on – but this 1996 initiative is organically tied to the biggest budget item under consideration by Hillary Clinton that is not named defense or social security. Have you seen her $50 billion plan for addressing HIV/AIDS in Africa?

Note: Please note the use of the word “global” in these documents and on the web sites of many international health and policy advocacy organizations. The word “global” refers usually to Western (US or European) organizations operating outside of the West for a specific purpose. It is to be contrasted with the word “international” which refers to nation states and government entities operating on a global basis. Therefore “global surveillance” specifically excludes the “home government” from all that is being surveilled if the entity conducting that surveillance so chooses. As all of these activities are to be conducted under the guidance of the United States Department of Defense, the combating of emerging infectious diseases is effectively no longer under the control of the governments of African nations who have any working relationship with a US-based global organization. Simply put, Bill and Melinda or whomever else operates an NGO under this and related programs will run the show wherever their dollars are on the ground and a Marine gunship is in the air.

In Part II: The Players, the Money and Rise of Barack Obama.

Patrick Buchanan: Three Wars, Three Lies, One Empire

The American Cause website has an article on the causes of World War II which makes points that I never read in my school books. It seems that many of the motive forces for Japan’s military engagements in the 1940’s were set in motion decades earlier. According to Buchanan, ideologies like fascism had nothing to do with the causes of US military engagement in WWII. Interesting.

General Norman Schwarzkopf, in the documentary film “The Final Battle” asserted that the US position with respect to the Japanese was little more than propaganda. Similar attempts at national vilification were introduced prior to this recent engagement in Iraq. Saddam Hussein, former ally and recipient of American chemical weapons (during his 8 year war with Iran), has been assassinated at the behest of his former partners in crime. Are the Chinese next?

Are the current battles in Iraq, Iran, Ethiopia and Sudan the “motive forces” for Chinese military engagement in a decade or two? How long will the Chinese play the energy resource-currency game with the United States?


U.S. Sponsoring Kurdish Guerilla Attacks Inside Iran

Don’t be surprised if dead Kurds are used as a pretext for war in about 8 months. I figure, right about the time that the stock market begins it annual October slide, the national media will uncover a story of atrocities against Kurds – which they will have been investigating for “6-8 months.”Full transcript of the interview is on Democracy Now! website

clipped from www.democracynow.org
Report: U.S. Sponsoring Kurdish Guerilla Attacks Inside Iran

We speak with independent journalist Reese Erlich about his report on Iranian Kurdish guerillas based among their Kurdish bretheren in northern Iraq. Erlich writes, “Kurdish and American sources say the United States has been supporting guerilla raids against Iran, channeling the money through organizations in Iraqi Kurdistan.

  • Reese Erlich, an independent radio producer and journalist. He reports on Iran in the latest issue of Mother Jones and is author of the forthcoming book “The Iran Agenda: the Real Story of U.S. Policy and the Middle East Crisis.”
  •   powered by clipmarks blog it