Sunday, April 30, 2006

Imposing Sanctions on Iran Illegal — Russian Diplomat

Imposing Sanctions on Iran Illegal — Russian Diplomat
Russian diplomat Ruslan Khazbulatov says there was no legal basis for the imposition of sanctions on Iran by the UN Security Council and that Iran’s nuclear activities were being conducted within the framework of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). He said US accusations against Iran were part of its war-mongering policies in the region.

"On the report of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei to the UN Security Council, he was of the view that the Security Council has “only the authority to ask Iran to cooperate with the IAEA and continue negotiations.” The Islamic Republic of Iran is an active member of both the IAEA and the UN, he said, and stressed that Tehran had repeatedly declared it had no intention of producing nuclear weapons.

Since Iran has not violated its obligations under the Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT), there is no ground for the imposition of sanctions on the country, the Russian diplomat stressed, and added that coercive measures will only damage the interests of countries, including the West and even the U.S."

Saturday, April 29, 2006

the MAIN issue was U.S. support of Israel

jillbryant asked, "do you actually think the terrorists wouldn't have attacked the US without being involved in Israel? Unless you say the first Gulf War was due to Israel also..."

Yes, the MAIN issue was U.S. support of Israel and in all in all likelihood the terrorists would have concentrated on someplace else like Chechnya if the U.S. was not supporting Israel.

In October 2002 a man suspected of helping to carry out the 9/11 attack told a German court that the alleged leader of the hijackers, Mohammed Atta, had wanted to fight in Chechnya.
He was one of the two terrorist pilots who crashed the two planes into the WTC and they shared the same motivation: Mohammed Atta, who flew into WTC 1, was described by one Ralph Bodenstein, who traveled, worked and talked with him, as "most imbued actually about Israeli politics in the region and about U.S. protection of these Israeli politics in the region. And he was to a degree personally suffering from that." Marwan al-Shehhi, the pilot who flew into WTC 2, was focused on the same thing, "when someone asked why he and Atta never laughed, Shehhi retorted,"How can you laugh when people are dying in Palestine?"" - page 162 THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT

The 9/11 Commission reported on the motive of the "mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks." On page 147 of the 9/11 Commission Report, it says "By his own account, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel. "" see Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's motivation was his objection to the US foreign policy of supporting Israel said the final report of the Sept. 11 Commission.

Ramzi Yousef, the 1993 WTC bomber, was motivated to attack the US because of US support of Israel: He had no other motivation, no other issue.

You mentioned the first Gulf war, the media suppressed to a large extent [you don't seem to know about it] Saddam's offer to withdraw (which would have avoided the war) if Israel withdrew from the occupied territories.

"On August 12, Iraq proposed a settlement linking its withdrawal from Kuwait to withdrawal from other occupied Arab lands: Syria and Israel from Lebanon, and Israel from the territories it conquered in 1967. Two weeks later, about the time that Friedman warned of the dangers of diplomacy, the Times learned of a considerably more far-reaching offer from Iraq, but chose to suppress it. A similar (or perhaps the same) offer was leaked to the suburban New York journal Newsday, which published it very prominently on August 29, compelling the Times to give it marginal and dismissive notice the next day. The Iraqi offer was delivered to National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft by a former high-ranking U.S. official on August 23. It called for Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait in return for the lifting of sanctions, full Iraqi control of the Rumailah oil field that extends about 2 miles into Kuwaiti territory over a disputed border, and guaranteed Iraqi access to the Gulf, which involves the status of two uninhabited islands that had been assigned by Britain to Kuwait in the imperial settlement, thus leaving Iraq virtually landlocked. Iraq also proposed negotiations on an oil agreement "satisfactory to both nations' national security interest," on "the stability of the gulf," and on plans "to alleviate Iraq's economical and financial problems." There was no mention of U.S. troop withdrawal or other preconditions. An Administration official who specializes in Mideast affairs described the proposal as "serious" and "negotiable." Like others, this diplomatic opportunity quickly passed. Where noted at all in the media, the offer was dismissed on the grounds that the White House was not interested; surely true, and sufficient for the offer to be written out of history, on the assumption that all must serve the whims of power."

"Professing high principle, Washington moved vigorously to block all diplomatic efforts, restricting its own contacts with Iraq to delivery of an ultimatum demanding immediate and total capitulation to U.S. force -- what George Bush called "going the extra mile to achieve a peaceful solution." Europeans were warned not to deviate from the firm U.S. rejection of any form of diplomacy or any hint of willingness to negotiate. Washington also sternly rejected any "linkage" with regional issues, expressing its moral revulsion at the very thought of rewarding an aggressor by considering problems of armaments, security, and others in a regional context. The effect was to minimize the likelihood that Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait might be arranged without the threat or use of force. It is difficult to imagine that this was not the purpose of the rejection of "linkage," also an unprecedented stand." -The Gulf Crisis Noam Chomsky Z Magazine, February, 1991
Once again we pay a price because of powerful special interests.

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton Lies

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton Lies, Insists the U.S. Didn't Violate the UN Charter
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
See Video Here

REPORTER: Sir, you talked quite often about the credibility of the UN ...

JOHN BOLTON: And so has Secretary Rice.

REPORTER: yes and Rice has as well but that seems to work in your favor when they do what you want them to do but you violated the UN Charter when you went to war against Iraq and you consistently lied to us about the reasons that we went to war. And this war was drawn up in Herzlia, Israel, in 1996, with the Project of a New American Century; and why do you have credibility other than that you've just got the biggest guns?

JOHN BOLTON: Can, may I ask what media outlet you're from?

REPORTER: [unclear] news weekly.

JOHN BOLTON: I see. We did not violate the UN Charter in the war to overthrow Saddam Hussein and that plan was not drawn up in Herzlia, the Project for a New American Century ...

REPORTER: [unclear]

JOHN BOLTON: OK, well then perhaps you can refer them to somebody.

[It is so unusual for a reporter to ask a good tough question that Bolton questions what media outlet the reporter is from] Keep in mind that she asks this in front of other U.S. reporters but it doesn't make the news!

Bolton is lying, there is no doubt that the war was illegal:
"Among the world's foremost experts in the field of international law, the overwhelming jurisprudential consensus is that the Anglo-American invasion, conquest, and occupation of Iraq constitute three phases of one illegal war of aggression."

Iraq War was Illegal and Breached U.N. Charter, Says Annan

Friday, April 28, 2006

A Closer Look at Foreign Policy

A Closer Look at Foreign Policy

The media plays along with Bush's big lie about why we were attacked, duping Americans into believing that the 9/11 terrorists' motive was "to alter our very way of life."

No, that is not true. The 9/11 terrorists were motivated by the desire to end specific foreign policies. When President Bush said "America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world" he simply was not telling the truth. See 9/11 motives

When Nat Turner committed acts of terrorism, the same game was played. In 1831, the game was to pretend Turner's terrorism wasn't about the policy of slavery. Today, the game is to pretend that the 9/11 attacks were not about U.S. support of Israel and other oppressive regimes in the Middle East.

Telling the truth in 1831 didn't mean that you thought school children deserved to have their heads chopped off. Being honest about the motives and opposing the policy of slavery didn't mean you thought Turner's terrorism was justified. Can that be any more clear?

The 9/11 Commission reported on the motive of the "mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks." On page 147 of the 9/11 Commission Report, it says "By his own account, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel."

The two terrorist pilots who crashed the two planes into the WTC shared the same motivation: Mohammed Atta, the pilot who flew into WTC 1, was described by one Ralph Bodenstein, who traveled, worked and talked with him, as "most imbued actually about Israeli politics in the region and about U.S. protection of these Israeli politics in the region. And he was to a degree personally suffering from that." Marwan al-Shehhi, the pilot who flew into WTC 2, was focused on the same thing, "when someone asked why he and Atta never laughed, Shehhi retorted,"How can you laugh when people are dying in Palestine?"" - page 162 THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT

The facts point to a motive for attacking the WTC in 2001 that is consistent with the motive expressed by terrorists in a letter sent to the New York Times after the 1993 bombing attack of the WTC, "We declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building. This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region."

Todd Beamer's father is just one of many victims of Bush's lie duped into thinking we were attacked "to alter our very way of life" as he wrote in his 4/27/2006 Op-Ed that appeared in the Wall Street Journal. But WSJ knows the truth, they published it on 9/14/2001, as Chomsky pointed out: "the Wall Street Journal published a review of opinions of "moneyed Muslims" in the region: bankers, professionals, businessmen. They expressed dismay and anger about us support for harsh authoritarian states and the barriers that Washington places against independent development and political democracy by its policies of "propping up oppressive regimes." their primary concern, however, was Washington's twin policies of support for Israel's harsh and brutal military occupation and devastation of the civilian society of iraq, with hundreds of thousands of deaths, while strengthening Saddam Hussein -- who they know very well received strong support from Washington and London through the period of his worst atrocities, including the gassing of the Kurds and beyond. Among the great mass of poor and suffering people, similar sentiments are much more bitter, and they are also hardly pleased to see the wealth of the region flow to the west and to small western-oriented elites and corrupt and brutal rulers backed by western power."

The lie the media helps sell
"is self-serving nonsense, and its purveyors surely know that, at least if they have any familiarity the current history, including the middle east. Naturally, these are convenient pretenses, which serve to deflect attention from the actual grievances expressed even by the most pro-western elements in the middle east, as is "well-known" (in the words of the Wall Street Journal article I quoted)." - Chomsky Interview

Below is the text of the WSJ article cited:

The following article is from the Wall Street Journal

Major Business News

America in the Eyes of the Arab World:
A Complex Mix of Emotions Fuels Hate

U.S. Is Resented for Its Power, 'Godless Materialism,'
Revered for Its Democracy, Principles of Due Process


Among the many questions smoldering in the ruins left by this week's terrorist attack is this: What possibly could have driven 18 presumably young hijackers, all of them now believed to be of Mideast origin, to sacrifice their lives in a mission to kill so many faceless Americans?

Answers may well surface someday, in elaborately detailed last wills and testaments prepared, often on videotape, by most Islamic suicide bombers. Until then, Americans are left to ponder the image of themselves in Islamic cultures arrayed from Morocco to Pakistan, societies with abiding differences among themselves yet with an increasingly shared antipathy toward the U.S., experts say.

This resentment is deeper and more complex than mere hatred of the U.S. for its support of Israel, say Arabs and Mideast scholars, though the daily images of embattled Palestinians on satellite TV have certainly fueled Islamic rage. Anti-Americanism has also taken root among well-educated middle-class professionals and businesspeople in the Arab and Muslim worlds, born of frustrations much closer to home: the perception that unlimited American power is responsible for propping up hated, oppressive regimes.

The Arab-Israeli conflict, in this sense, is a surrogate in many places for the discontent that people feel with their own governments. Because it is dangerous in most Muslim countries to express or act upon such political frustrations, people lash out at the U.S. and Israel instead.

And in places like the Gaza Strip, Egypt and Pakistan, there is a ready supply of poor and desperate young men to provide the blood and brawn for terrorism, Mideast experts say. Yet it takes the encouragement and support of better-heeled elements of society -- bankers in Cairo and Bahrain, say, or doctors and lawyers in Algiers and Islamabad -- to make suicide bombing acceptable.

"I've been bombarded all week with e-mails and calls from friends throughout the Muslim world who've expressed their outrage at what's happened here," says John Esposito, a Georgetown University professor who runs the school's Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. "But what's struck me is how many of them have also said they hope America will now take a closer look at its foreign policy. Many are businesspeople who deal with the U.S. all the time but who feel our presence in the region, especially in the Gulf, is forcing economic and military dependency. A great deal of disappointment involves their own rulers."

The main political grievance is well-known, frequently aired in the region's media: America's alleged double standard in defending Israel's occupation of Arab lands while continuing to hit Iraq with economic sanctions and military attacks for what some Muslims consider essentially the same behavior. For many Arabs and Muslims, this humiliating disparity is compounded by the fact that so many of their own authoritarian rulers have not only acquiesced in this state of affairs but also actively helped maintain it by cooperating with the U.S. military.

Then, when Muslim countries such as Algeria, Jordan and Egypt attempt to elect parliamentary representatives -- often Islamic fundamentalists -- who challenge the regimes' pro-U.S. stance, their rulers thwart democracy with hardly a protest by a U.S. government fearful of change.

Enter the late Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran, Saddam Hussein of Iraq or Osama bin Laden, now in Afghanistan -- men, in the eyes of their followers, not afraid to resist U.S. hegemony and thus lionized by many Arabs and Muslims.

"Osama definitely touched a nerve, even among people who don't agree with his methods," says Philip Robins, a Mideast expert at Oxford University. "The U.S. would be well advised to try to think of the way it conducts itself internationally, at the U.N., at the way it presents itself to the world."

Mr. Robins says the U.S., in Mideastern minds, conjures up "an undifferentiated ball of different emotions" -- it is both resented for its power and "godless materialism" and revered for its democracy and principles of due process.

That's why the U.S. arouses such passion and anger in the Muslim world, among all segments of society: The realpolitik of its diplomacy, particularly in the oil-soaked Mideast, has seldom lived up to its cherished ideals. An oft-heard lament from Arabs and Muslims is: Why, if equality and freedom are so important in the West, doesn't the U.S. stand up for them in the Muslim world?

Implicit in that question is one of the cruelest ironies of this week's wanton bloodshed: that America has been victimized by the exalted expectations it instilled in others. "We are sorry about the civilian victims, and cannot but condemn this terrorist act," wrote the London-based Arabic newspaper al-Quds al-Arabi in an editorial this week. "But we call upon American citizens to ask, why among all the embassies, buildings and defense establishments of all the Western powers, it is theirs that are targeted by terrorist actions?"

The heart of the matter is pride, say Mideast scholars, the pride of Muslim peoples who know from their religion, history and traditions they were once a dominant civilization but who now feel subjugated by an American superpower they regard as culturally shallow and by what they see as its warship, Israel. Many Arabs and Muslims feel the normal ways societies pick themselves up -- developing their economies, renewing their governments -- aren't available to them, again because the U.S. has propped up oppressive regimes.

Take Jordan, for example, one of the U.S.'s closest Mideast allies and a country that has been thought since its peace with Israel nearly a decade ago to have bright economic prospects. Yet as its population has grown nearly 3% a year, its economy has barely kept up.

"Economic malaise is becoming a permanent condition," says Labib Kamhawi, an opposition member of Jordan's parliament.

This year, Jordan's King Abdullah circulated a memo to members of his royal family ordering them to "avoid overspending and accumulating debts." Some Jordanians believed that the notice smacked of a public-relations gimmick to make the monarchy sound frugal. The rest of the population, meanwhile, is so uncreditworthy that most merchants refuse to even accept checks. For decades, Jordan and its monarchs have been recipients of direct and covert U.S. aid.

"I have six lawyers and can arrest people who write rubber checks," says Abdulmajeed Shoman, the chairman of Arab Bank, Jordan's largest bank. "Not everyone else can do that."

Write to Peter Waldman at, Stephen J. Glain at, Robert S. Greenberger at, Hugh Pope at and Steve LeVine at

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Beyond All Reasonable Doubt

Beyond All Reasonable Doubt

Beyond all reasonable doubt, the Bush Administration is guilty of the high crime of lying our nation into war. We all must work now for justice, to do nothing, to allow such an enormous offense to go unpunished, dishonors us all. We the people cannot allow President Bush and others to act as King and Royal Court thinking themselves unaccountable to anyone, thinking they can get away with committing such monumental fraud. When President Bush, Vice President Cheney and others sold this war to the America people, they clearly committed fraud. They lied our nation into a war.

"A retired CIA veteran is disputing U.S. President George Bush's claim that there was faulty intelligence on Iraq in the run-up to the war.

Tyler Drumheller, who worked for the CIA for 26 years and ended up directing covert operations for Europe until retiring a year ago, told CBS News it became evident Bush was going to invade Iraq regardless of what the intelligence said.

"It just sticks in my craw every time I hear them say it's an intelligence failure. This was a policy failure," Drumheller said."

"Drumheller also said the Bush administration paid no heed to Naji Sabri, Iraq's foreign minister, who had made a deal to reveal military secrets, and who said there were no secret weapons." - CIA vet says Iraq pre-war data was bogus [The Mainstream Media should have informed the general public of this fact! Scott Ritter tried to warn the American people about this before the war in an Op-Ed back in September of 2002. MSM has been downplaying or suppressing these things, for example, Missing From ABC's WMD 'Scoop' Star defector Hussein Kamel said weapons were destroyed]

"[The source] told us that there were no active weapons of mass destruction programs," Drumheller is quoted as saying. "The [White House] group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested. And we said 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.' [ At the same time they were telling us that it was about WMD! ]

Cover Up Of Bush Crimes: WMD Report Doesn't Match CIA Official's Memory

I pointed out Bush administration's war lies before in previous posts:

The Problem Was Not "Faulty Intelligence," the Problem Was Dishonestly Selecting And Omitting Intelligence

"when the Bush administration began gearing up for war with Iraq in 2002, it found that selective citation of Kamel's testimony could be very helpful in making its case. Vice President Dick Cheney asserted in an August 2002 speech (8/26/02) that the Iraqi regime had been "very busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents," and continued "to pursue the nuclear program they began many years ago." To back this up these claims, Cheney added, "We've gotten this from the firsthand testimony of defectors, including Saddam's own son-in-law"?a reference to Kamel.

In a Chicago Tribune op-ed (9/10/02), former head of the U.N. weapons inspection team Scott Ritter pointed out that Cheney had left out a critical part of Kamel's story:

Throughout his interview with UNSCOM, a U.N. special commission, Hussein Kamel reiterated his main point - that nothing was left. "All chemical weapons were destroyed," he said. "I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons - biological, chemical, missile, nuclear - were destroyed."

Nevertheless, the administration continued to selectively use Kamel's disclosures to bolster its case that Iraq had hidden stockpiles of banned weapons. "It took years for Iraq to finally admit that it had produced four tons of the deadly nerve agent, VX," then-Secretary of State Colin Powell said in his February 5, 2003 speech to the U.N. "The admission only came out after inspectors collected documentation as a result of the defection of Hussein Kamel, Saddam Hussein's late son-in-law." Powell did not note that Kamel had also reported that this nerve gas, along with all other such weapons, had been destroyed years earlier (Extra!, 5-6/03)." - Missing From ABC's WMD 'Scoop' Star defector Hussein Kamel said weapons were destroyed

US Intelligence About Iraq Didn't Really Fail, It Was Manipulated
"General Zinni was alarmed that day to hear Cheney make the argument for attacking Iraq on grounds that Zinni found questionable at best:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction," Cheney said. "There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

Cheney's certitude bewildered Zinni. As chief of the Central Command, Zinni had been immersed in U.S. intelligence about Iraq. He was all too familiar with the intelligence analysts' doubts about Iraq's programs to acquire weapons of mass destruction, or WMD. "In my time at Centcom, I watched the intelligence, and never -- not once -- did it say, 'He has WMD.'"

Though retired for nearly two years, Zinni says, he remained current on the intelligence through his consulting with the CIA and the military. "I did consulting work for the agency, right up to the beginning of the war. I never saw anything. I'd say to analysts, 'Where's the threat?' " Their response, he recalls, was, "Silence."

Monday, April 24, 2006

Lobbying for Unjust Policies

Lobbying for Unjust Policies

Politicians are constantly lobbied by those representing the interests of power and privilege, elites who push dangerous policies without regard for principles of justice and democracy. In many cases elites put us at risk, their polices literally endanger out lives. Their concern is enriching themselves and in their greed they ignore truth, justice and the basic principles our country is supposed to stand for. We the people lose, our interests are not reflected in many of the policies that the elites successful get our government to pursue.

What is called "American interests" is actually elite interests. And elites have shown that they are willing to harm the interests of the average American. All special interests who push for dangerous U.S. government policies must be exposed. The track record shows that elites are willing to harm the interests of the average American. Yes, the Israeli lobby harms the interests of the average American.

This question was asked about the Israeli lobby: "Regardless the actual influence of the lobby, should it not be exposed and opposed for advocating unjust policies, even if those policies were to be undertaken without their encouragement?"

Chomsky answers: "Absolutely. That's why I've been devoting a great deal of effort to it for over 40 years, concentrating on the component of the lobby that seems to me the most dangerous: the intellectual-political class, and their remarkable love affair with Israel after its smashing military victory in 1967. Their influence is of course enormous, and I think it's important to expose the massive falsehoods and deceit that envelop this topic -- and not this one alone, of course.

And one should expose any group that advocates unjust policies (the term is a serious understatement, in this case).

As for the relative significance of the lobby in comparison with other factors that enter into decision-making, that should be recognized to be a subtle matter, as I wrote in an earlier response about this. That's even true when there is a rich documentary record about planning, which we don't have in this case. One thing we can say with fair confidence is that it's hard to take seriously views that are expressed with great confidence about such matters as these, let alone those that are accompanied with tirades and hysterical accusations.

The question does have implications for activism. Thus if the lobby has enormous power and is acting in ways that harm the interests of power and privilege, then there are implications for activism. If that's true, a high priority should be given to putting on ties and jackets and visiting executive suites to explain to ExxonMobil, Intel, Boeing, IBM, etc. that their interests are being harmed by a lobby that they could easily overwhelm if they chose -- that is, if we believe that the energy corporations and the rest have some influence in the Bush administration." - Chomsky on Znet Apr 18, 2006

William Blum makes this point, "There are those who argue that the United States has invaded numerous countries without requiring instigation by Israel. This is of course true, it's what the empire does for a living. But to say that the Israel lobby played a vital role in the invasion of Iraq in 2003 is not to suggest an explanation for the whole history of US foreign interventions." -Anti-Empire Update William Blum April 23, 2006

"Despite a practiced guise of objectivity, the US corporate media's reporting on Israel/Palestine is dominated by the Israeli narrative."- The New York Times Whitewashes the Israeli Takeover of East Jerusalem

Arnold Evans writes, "I still have not seen the argument that the US has a strategic interest in maintaining Israel's current ethnic composition."

"Far more visibly than any other domestic constituency, the Israel Lobby, defined by Profs. John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt, academic dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, as "the loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction", has pushed the government -- both Congress and the George W. Bush administration -- toward confrontation with Tehran." - Iran Showdown Tests Power of "Israel Lobby"

Sunday, April 23, 2006

A Word Away from Nuclear War

In your book, Hegemony or Survival, you mention threats to human survival and I saw a speech where you talked about nuclear misfires and things like that. ... 1995 we came pretty close to an accident.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Many times, many times. Take the Cuban missile crisis, it literally came a word away from firing of a nuclear tipped torpedo which could have had a - probably would have had a nuclear response which could have set off a chain reaction to a nuclear war. A Russian submarine commander countermanded an order to fire nuclear tipped torpedoes at a time when Russian submarines were under attack by U.S. destroyers and the commanders thought there was a nuclear war going on. One commander countermanded the order which is why it didn’t happen. ...
See More Chomsky Clips

Saturday, April 22, 2006

Israel Expelled Arabs, Committed Atrocities Against Them, Dispossessed Them.

"'Israel, as a society, also suppressed the memory of its war against the local Palestinians, because it couldn't really come to terms with the fact that it expelled Arabs, committed atrocities against them, dispossessed them. This was like admitting that the noble Jewish dream of statehood was stained forever by a major injustice committed against the Palestinians and that the Jewish state was born in sin.' I think a lot of people would be surprised to hear that the author of these words is the former Foreign Minister of Israel." - AMY GOODMAN

Friday, April 21, 2006

Why terrorists are attacking us.

It is outrageous to push the idea that terrorists attack us because we don't "see it their way" They attack us because they don't like to be on the receiving end of what are objectively unjust policies. All the evidence shows that it is specific foreign polices that they are reacting to.

On page 147 of the 9/11 Commission Report, it says "By his own account, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student , but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel. " The Gorilla in the Room is US Support for Israel.

Ramzi Yousef was motivated to attack the US because of US support of Israel : He had no other motivation, no other issue. The FBI questioned Ramzi Yousef about his motivations for bombing the World Trade Center in 1993.

"Yousef said he took no thrill from killing American citizens and felt guilty about the civilian deaths he had caused. But his conscience was overridden by *his desire to stop the killing of Arabs by Israeli troops.*" "Yousef said he "would like it to be different," but only terrible violence could force this kind of abrupt political change. He said that he truly believed his actions had been rational and logical in pursuit of a change in U.S. policy toward Israel.He mentioned no other motivation during the flight and no other issue in American foreign policy that concerned him." Steve Coll, Ghost Wars p273

And U.S. policy makers were backing the most extreme elements in the Middle East the same time helping to kill off Middle Easterners striving for progress. Supporting fundamentalists, the CIA was shipping Korans and weapons, it was supporting people like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar who was known for throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil, etc. The CIA supported the two coups that put the Ba'ath party into power in the first place. The CIA handed over lists of people to the Ba'ath party to be killed. Other details here: A Rogue State is Killing Hope In the Middle East Policy-makers working for the U.S. have installed brutal regimes and they have killed off people who opposed such oppressive regimes

The U.S. and Saddam Hussien were partners in war crimes using WMD which U.S. policy makers now hypocritically denounce.

As far as details about the wrongs of supporting Israel, check out these facts: Deceptions Sell Israel to the American Public: "It is still difficult for many to believe that a deception of such magnitude is possible."

And here are some details about the reality of Israeli crimes.

Thursday, April 20, 2006

"More than once, defense officials in Jerusalem have said that Israel might attack Iran's nuclear facilities. In response, Iran's defense minister, Ali Shamkhani, warned that should Israel do so, his country would wipe out Israel." - Martin van Creveld IHT Friday, August 20, 2004

Chomsky quotes Martin van Creveld, an Israeli military historian, who writes,
"The world has witnessed how the United States attacked Iraq for, as it turned out, no reason at all. Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy." Failed States p 73

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

Dwight D. Eisenhower warned the American people of the "military industrial complex." "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." Get the movie Why We Fight
U.S. Constitution and Executive Power
Ben Franklin signed the U.S. Constitution after participating as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. "Many of the delegates had widely different ideas about how the country should be organized and run, including Franklin. For instance, he believed that executive power was too great to be placed in the hands of one person and that a committee was a much better option."

Bombing Iran is not only illegal and unjust, it is an unacceptable risk. The risks of "stopping Iran" are greater than not "stopping Iran." It isn't just my opinion that the risks that come with military actions against Iran are unacceptable. Look at the conclusion drawn from war-game simulations of attacking Iran. The final conclusion after running through many options was expressed by General Gardiner, a simulations expert at the U.S. Army's National War College:

"After all this effort, I am left with two simple sentences for policymakers," Sam Gardiner said of his exercise. "You have no military solution for the issues of Iran. And you have to make diplomacy work.""

The CIA and DIA have war-gamed the likely consequences of a U.S. pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. No one liked the outcome. As an Air Force source tells it, ‘The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating.‘” I HOPE BUSH LISTENS! But the Bush Administration OFTEN IGNORES advice from intelligence.

The example of the USSR is an important one to analyze. The biggest close call was because of U.S. policy maker's recklessness and aggression toward Cuba. We don't want to repeat the same kind of mistakes. And the sick part is President Kennedy didn't know about the hypocrisy of U.S. nukes already based a mere 150 miles from Soviet boarders, in Turkey.

As far as the habits of other nuclear countries, the U.S. and Israel are heavily involved in terrorism. The U.S. has inflicted massive amounts of terrorism against Cuba, just one example. And the hypocrisy is incredible. Look at the case of Orlando Bosch. The U.S. Justice Department, which was overruled by Bush I, complained that the U.S. harboring Bosch put the public interests at risk because "the security of this nation is affected by its ability to urge credibly other nations to refuse aid and shelter to terrorists." Look also at the shameful case of the Cuban 5.

We also need to look at what Israel actually is, and it isn't pretty. For example, if all the people living in Israel had equal rights, the same rights we demand for ourselves, that would be the destruction of Israel by definition. Keeping in place a system of discrimination based on religion is not something Americans should risk their lives for. Keeping in place a system of injustice is not something Americans should support. Should the Confederacy have been wiped off the map?

Saturday, April 15, 2006

It's not the kind of thing to report.
Transcript of Chomsky Interview Clip 1
Tom Murphy Interviews Noam Chomsky December 2005

TOM MURPHY: Unfortunately, the effective political forum we have is held by the commercial sector, mostly television, not only debates but just when discussions happen. I'll give you one quick example, this is a continuing pattern but Mike Wallace, who was from 60 Minutes, was on the Tim Russert show and he was mentioning that several years ago he did a story about Israel or Jews in Syria and things like that. And he said that, "the Jewish community and the Jewish lobby came after me." And he said that the story he covered, National Geographic was going to cover it - they had to kill it. Tim Russert sits there, nothing. Now the premise is we have an open society. You know, Dershowitz said, "why, why would the press act like this?" When here it is, we can see it, Tim Russert being quiet.

NOAM CHOMSKY: I mean I - he said it after I gave an example of it. He didn't like the example so he claimed it didn't happen. But anybody - it's been in print for years, including the sources. Anybody who wants can check 'em up. It happened. And this was a striking case where in the Intifada, you know, the Palestinian uprising, in the territories in October 2000. The first few days, Israel was using U.S. helicopters, which they don't make, to attack civilian complexes like apartment houses, killing and wounding dozens of people - that was reported. Next day, Clinton made the biggest deal in a decade to send military helicopters to Israel. Not controversial, you can read it in the Israeli press, you can read it in the leading international military journals, Jane's Defence Weekly. Amnesty International had a report. I had a friend do a database search in the United States - this is really important information. You know, here is a country that's using U.S. helicopters to murder civilians and we react by sending more helicopters. Big story. I had a friend do a database search, zilch. One letter in a newspaper in North Carolina. It wasn't that the editors missed the story. In fact, in some cases, which in fact I know about personally, the story was - there were meetings with editors to ask them to cover it. Of course they didn't miss it. I mean, they read the same press wires we all read. It was just "it's not the kind of thing to report."

TOM MURPHY: Right. If someone wants ...

NOAM CHOMSKY: And there are thousands of cases like this. I mean, take one right now. Did you read the report, the polls taken by the British Defense Ministry in Iraq?

TOM MURPHY: I think I heard it from you.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, maybe you heard it from me but did you read it in the front page of the New York Times? OK, very important. They stopped reporting poll results from Iraq cause the results aren't coming out the way they want. But, you know, we are supposed to be bringing democracy to Iraq. OK, you want to know what Iraqis think? I mean, that would be relevant.


NOAM CHOMSKY: OK, the British Defense Ministry did carry out a poll a couple of months ago. It was secret but it leaked to the press in England and was reported there. Every American journalist and editor knows about it. The report was that 82% of the population want British and American troops out, 1% think that they're improving security and 45% think that attacks against them are legitimate. Is that important information before an election? Yeah. Was it reported here? No. In fact the same thing happened in our election. Right before the 2004 election, the two major most prestigious institutions that study public opinion came out with extensive reports on U.S. public opinion and they showed what I describe: both political parties way to the right of the population on very important issues. It was reported in two local newspapers, a couple of op-eds here and there. What could be more important in a democratic society than knowing what your neighbors think?

TOM MURPHY: Right. You know, one of the premises of what we are doing in Iraq is that we are actually - that U.S. officials are sincere about setting up a democracy but we don't have to wait, do we, to know if they're sincere because they have already violated the rights of the Iraqis with business ...

NOAM CHOMSKY: I mean, look, the belief that they're there to bring democracy can be held only by people who want to act like North Koreans. I mean, we have a record, a public record, its not a secret, it's not ancient history, it's 2003. When they invaded, Bush, Powell, Blair, Jack Straw, Rice, the rest of them, kept stressing over and over that there is a single question, it's their phrase. Single question: Will Iraq give up it's weapons of mass destruction? That was the single question. That's how Bush got authorization from Congress for force. The single question. Well they invaded, a couple of weeks, the single question was answered the wrong way. All of a sudden the story changes, no it wasn't the single question, it was what the press calls "Bush's messianic mission to bring democracy to Iraq." If this were happening in North Korea we'd laugh. What question of sincerity is there? I mean, is there a particle of evidence that they're in favor of democracy? Not one, except for the declarations of leaders. There is an election in Iraq. Why? The U.S. and Britain tried in every way they could think of to prevent an election and they were compelled by mass popular non-violent resistance to allow an election. That's not a secret, you know - perfectly open. And immediately they tried to subvert it, as they're doing right now, by announcing right away:"no table for withdrawal" - it doesn't matter what the Iraqis think.

Click here to watch video clips
Noam Chomsky Video
See clips and transcripts of Tom Murphy's Interview with Noam Chomsky December 2005
These internet clips are poor video quality because the images were taken by recording the TV screen which was playing a VHS recording of the orignial tapes. The video for the internet clips was made by capturing the image off the TV screen with a Canon PowerShot 520. But the planned video of the interview will look really good once I get the proper equipment to edit it. I just threw these clips together with the equipment I had, it was the easiest way to get the video I shot from analog to digital and into my Mac. The interview was done with two cameras, 8mm Analog and Hi8 Analog. I needed to get the analog video digitized and into my Mac with a fire wire
When I get the proper equipment (with your help) I can edit together the final video and it will look much better. I put these clips up on the web just to give people a sample of the interview.

If had had a big budget, I would like to get the Sony HDR-FX1 3-CCD HDV High Definition Camcorder. I could record the tapes into it and then get the video into my Mac by firewire.
Amazon Honor System

Click Here to Pay
Learn More

Sunday, April 09, 2006

Coming Soon: My Interview with Chomsky
Please help cover the costs of editing
I am thinking of making it into a Flash movie where I can show the subtitles. Here is a snipit of the text: "I mean the Camp David agreements in 2000 were completely impossible, nobody could accept them. Mahmoud Abbas, the U.S. favorite, rejected them. And Clinton recognized that they were unacceptable. A couple of months after the Camp David fell apart, Clinton backed off, he produced what are called his parameters. This is December 2000. They're kind of vague but they went some direction towards satisfying legitimate Palestinian demands. (see Reshaping History) He then pointed out, Clinton, that both sides, Palestinians and Israelis, had accepted his parameters, both sides had reservations. That's what he said. Then they had negotiations in Taba, in Egypt. There were negotiations that went on toward the end of January at which considerable progress was made towards the long standing international consensus that the U.S. unilaterally has blocked for 30 years. They were moving towards it, might have made a settlement. Israel called off the meetings. Informal negotiations then continued, high level negotiators but not official. They came up with several plans of which the most well known is what's called the Geneva Accord was presented in December 2002. Most of the world, you know, very much favors, sent representatives, strong comments. Israel flatly rejected it. The United States just dismissed it, they didn't talk about it. It wasn't the end but it was a basis for a two state settlement pretty much in accord with the international consensus that has been quite clear for 30 years. U.S. flatly rejects it. Israel rejects it. That's it."
Chomsky Clips

Friday, April 07, 2006

Is it possible? Could President Bush really be the man behind leaking classified information? (and the Vice president too?) "There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame’s CIA identity. But it points to Cheney as one of the originators of the idea that Plame could be used to discredit her husband, Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson." "Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide told prosecutors that President Bush authorized a leak of sensitive intelligence information about Iraq, according to court papers filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak case. The filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald also describes Cheney involvement in I. Lewis Libby's communications with the press. " -By Pete Yost ASSOCIATED PRESS

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

Chomsky talks about the New York Times' extreme bias in reporting on Israel. Writing about the withdrawal of the illegal settlers that Israel had living in Gaza, the NYT "reported the anguish of the settlers that'll have to leave." Chomsky gives an analogy of how distorted and manipulative the NYT reporting really is, with such an off the wall bias in favor of the illegal Israeli settlers: "it's kind of as if the reporting has been -- as if, say, you know, I broke into your house, took over the whole house, finally agreed -- tortured you, you know, stole everything from you and so on, and then agreed to leave you the attic and the cellar, but keep the rest of the house. And it's -- I do that with great anguish, because I don't want to leave the attic. I kind of liked it. I mean, that's the way it' being reported. It's scandalous." - Noam Chomsky on Iraq Troop Withdrawal, Haiti, Democracy in Latin America and the Israeli Elections

Monday, April 03, 2006

The Task of Zionists
"It goes back, I suppose, to the distinguished diplomat, Abba Eban -- it must be thirty years ago -- wrote in an American Jewish journal that “the task of Zionists,” he said, “is to show that all political anti-Zionism” – that means criticism of the policies of the state of Israel – “is either anti-Semitism or Jewish self-hatred.” Well, okay, that excludes all possible criticism, by definition. As examples of neurotic Jewish self-hatred, I should declare an interest. He mentioned two people. I was one; the other was Izzy Stone.

Once you release the torrent of abuse, you don't need arguments and evidence, you can just scream" - Chomsky