Archive for March, 2011

Russia’s UN Veto … is Libya’s only hope !

Thursday, March 31st, 2011

Global Research Editor’s note

The account provided by the team of Russian Doctors constitutes an eyewitness account of what is happening on the ground in Libya. It contradicts the stream of media disinformation. It confirms that the coaltion  is routinely bombing civilian targets. For those progressives who have endorsed the US-NATO “humanitarian mandate”, this account provides us with evidence of extensive war crimes by those you claim to be coming to the rescue of civilians. Residential buildings, hospital are being targeted by the coalition’s smart bombs. The latter are extremely precise. The bombing of civilians is deliberate. These are so-called validated targets. they are part of a list of targets.

Mchel Chossudovsky, March 28, 2011

emphasis added, minor editing


Open letter of  Russian doctors in Libya to the President of the Russian Federation

Today, there is blatant external aggression of USA and NATO against a sovereign country – Libya. And if anyone can doubt this, then we say this obvious fact is well known, because all this is happening before our eyes, and the actions of U.S. and NATO threaten the lives of not only the citizens of Libya, but to us who are on its territory. We are outraged by the barbaric bombing of Libya, which is currently carried out by a coalition of U.S. and NATO.

The bombing of Tripoli and other cities in Libya is aimed not only at the objects of air defense and Libya’s Air Force and not only against the Libyan army, but also the object of military and civilian infrastructure. Today, 24 March 2011, NATO aircraft and the U.S. all night and all morning bombed a suburb of Tripoli – Tajhura (where, in particular, is Libya’s Nuclear Research Center). Air Defense and Air Force facilities in Tajhura were destroyed back in the first 2 days of strikes and more active military facilities in the city remained, but today the object of bombing are barracks of the Libyan army, around which are densely populated residential areas, and next to it – the largest in Libya’s Heart Centers. Civilians and the doctors could not assume that common residential quarters will be about to become destroyed, so none of the residents or hospital patients was evacuated.

Bombs and rockets struck residential houses and fell near the hospital. The glass of the Cardiac Center building was broken, and in the building of the maternity ward for pregnant women with heart disease a wall collapsed and part of the roof. This resulted in ten miscarriages whereby babies died, the women are in intensive care, doctors are fighting for their lives. Our colleagues and we are working seven days a week, to save people. This is a direct consequence of falling bombs and missiles in residential buildings resulting in dozens of deaths and injuries, which are operated and reviewed now by our doctors. Such a large number of wounded and killed, as during today, did not result during the total of all the riots in Libya. And this is called “protecting the civilian population”?

With full responsibility as witnesses and participants of what is happening, we state that the United States and its allies are thus carrying out genocide against the Libyan people – as was the case in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Crimes against humanity, carried out by coalition forces akin to those crimes committed by the fathers and grandfathers of today’s Western leaders and their henchmen in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan and in Dresden in Germany, where civilians were also being destroyed in order to deter, to break the will of the people to resist (Germany remembers it, and therefore refused to participate in this new slaughterhouse). Today they want in such ways to make the Libyan people surrender their leader and the legitimate government and meekly lay down their national oil wealth for the countries of the coalition.

We understand that applying to the “international community” to save the people of Libya and we were living in Libya, is useless. Our only hope – is Russia that has the right of veto in the UN, and specifically its leaders – the President and the Prime Minister.

We still hope for you, as hoped in the past, when we took the decision to stay in Libya, and to help its people, medical duty playing its role in the first place. After an abortive coup attempt in late February, the situation calmed down in Libya and the government had successfully restored order. To everyone in Libya, it was clear that without American intervention the country would soon return to normal life. Convinced that Russia, which has veto power, would not allow the aggression of the United States and its allies, we decided to stay in Libya, but were mistaken: Russia, unfortunately, believed the false assurances of Americans and did not oppose the criminal decision of France and the U.S.

We are Ukrainians, Russians and Belarusians, the people of various professions (mainly doctors), working in Libya for more than a year (from 2 to 20 years). During this time, we became well acquainted with the life of the Libyan people and state with few citizens of other nations living in this social comfort, as the Libyans. They are entitled to free treatment, and their hospitals provide the best in the world of medical equipment.

Education in Libya is free, capable young people have the opportunity to study abroad at government expense. When marrying, young couples receive 60,000 Libyan dinars (about 50,000 U.S. dollars) of financial assistance.

Non-interest state loans, and as practice shows, undated. Due to government subsidies the price of cars is much lower than in Europe, and they are affordable for every family. Gasoline and bread cost a penny, no taxes for those who are engaged in agriculture.

The Libyan people are quiet and peaceful, are not inclined to drink, and are very religious. Today, the people are suffering. In February, the peaceful life of the people was violated by gangs of criminals and insane drugged youth – whom the Western media for some reason called “peaceful demonstrators”. They used weapons and attacked police stations, government agencies, military units – resulting in bloodshed. Those who direct them, pursue a clear objective – to create chaos and establish control over Libya’s oil. They misinformed the international community, and said that the Libyans are struggling against the regime. Tell us, who would not like such a regime? If such a regime were in Ukraine or Russia, we would not have been here and worked and enjoyed the social comfort at home in our own countries and in every possible way such a regime would be maintained.

If the U.S. and the EU today have nothing to do, let them turn their attention to the plight of Japan, the Israeli bombing of Palestine, the audacity and impunity of Somali pirates, or the plight of Arab immigrants in France, and leave the Libyans themselves to sort out their internal problems. We see that today in Libya they want to do another Iraq. Carrying out the genocide of an entire people and those who are found with him. We perform MEDICAL DEBT and cannot leave Libyans alone in trouble, leaving them to be destroyed by the forces of the coalition, in addition, we understand that when all the foreigners leave and no one will tell the truth (the small staff of diplomatic missions have long been silenced), the Americans will arrange here a bloodbath. Our only chance of survival – is a solid civil position of Russia in the UN Security Council.

We hope that you, Mr. President, and you, Mr. Prime Minister, as citizens of Russia and as decent people will not allow American and European fascists of the 21st century to destroy the freedom-loving people of Libya and of those who today turned out to be with them.

We therefore urgently request that Russia uses its right of veto, the right earned by millions of lives of the Soviet people during World War II to stop the aggression against a sovereign state, to seek immediate cessation of U.S. and NATO bombing campaign and to demand the introduction of African Union troops in the conflict zone Libya.

Note: The African Union Peace & Security Council delegates that had been accepted by both the Libyan government and the rebel leaders to mediate a peaceful solution between the various parties, were refused entry into Libya by the UN Security Council. This act should have been reprimanded by Russia and China, who should study the AU resolutions, mandate and support its wise decisions]


With Respect and Hope

Your Wisdom and Honesty,

Citizens of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, located in Libya

Bordovsky S., Vasilenko, S., Vegerkina A., Henry IV, Henry H., L. Grigorenko, DraBragg, A., Drobot V. Drobot, N., Yemets E., Kolesnikova, T., Kuzin, I., Kuzmenko, B., Kulebyakin V. Kulmenko T., Nikolaev AG, Papelyuk V. Selizar V. Selizar About . Smirnov, O. Smirnova, R., Soloviev DA, Stadnik VA, Stolpakova T. Streschalin G. Stakhovich Yu, Sukacheva L. Sukachev V. Tarakanov, T., Tikhon N. Tikhonov VI, Tkachev AV, Hadareva E., Tchaikovsky, O., Chukhno D. Chukhno O. Yakovenko D. et al

The collection of signatures under the Appeal to the heads of Russia and under the request of an international tribunal in The Hague for crimes of U.S. and NATO in Libya.

Did You . . . know this . . . ?

Wednesday, March 30th, 2011


Posted: March 27, 2011 by slindauer2010 in Uncategorized



Who are we kidding? The United States, Britain and NATO don’t care about bombing civilians to contain rebellion. Their militaries bomb civilians every day without mercy. They have destroyed most of the community infrastructure of Iraq and Afghanistan before turning their sights on Libya. So what’s really going on here?

According to the CIA, the following never happened…

Last October, US oil giants— Chevron and Occidental Petroleum— made a surprising decision to pull out of Libya, while China, Germany and Italy stayed on, signing major contracts with Gadhaffi’s government.  As the U.S. Asset who started negotiations for the Lockerbie Trial with Libyan diplomats, I had close ties to Libya’s U.N. Mission from 1995 to 2003. Given my long involvement in the Lockerbie saga, I have continued to enjoy special access to high level intelligence gossip on Libya.

Last summer that gossip got juicy!

About July, I started hearing that Gadhaffi was exerting heavy pressure on U.S. and British oil companies to cough up special fees and kick backs to cover the costs of Libya’s reimbursement to the families of Pan Am 103. Payment of damages for the Lockerbie bombing had been one of the chief conditions for ending U.N. sanctions on Libya that ran from 1992 until 2003. And of course the United Nations forced Gadhaffi to hand over two Libyan men for a special trial at The Hague, though everybody credible was fully conscious of Libya’s innocence in the Lockerbie affair. (Only ignorant politicians trying to score publicity points say otherwise.)

Knowing Gadhaffi as well as I do, I was convinced that he’d done it. He’d bided his time until he could extort compensation from U.S. oil companies. He’s a crafty bastard, extremely intelligent and canny. That’s exactly how he operates. And now he was taking his revenge. As expected, the U.S. was hopping mad about it. Gadhaffi wasn’t playing the game the way the Oil Bloodsuckers wanted. The Vampire of our age—the Oil Industry—roams the earth, sucking the life out of every nation to feed its thirst for profits. Only when they got to Libya, Gadhaffi took on the role of a modern-day Robin Hood, who insisted on replenishing his people for the costs they’d suffered under U.N. sanctions.

Backing up a year earlier, in August 2009 the lone Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing that killed 270 people, Abdelbasset Megrahi, won a compassionate release from Scottish prison. Ostensibly, the British government and Scottish Courts granted Megrahi’s request to die at home with dignity from advance stage cancer—in exchange for dropping a legal appeal packed with embarrassments for the European Courts. The decision to free Megrahi followed shocking revelations of corruption at the special Court of The Hague that handled the Lockerbie Trial. Prosecution witnesses confessed to receiving payments of $4 million each from the United States, in exchange for testimony against Megrahi, a mind-blowing allegation of judicial corruption.

The Lockerbie conviction was full of holes to begin with. Anybody who knows anything about terrorism in the 1980s knows the CIA got mixed up in heroin trafficking out of the Bekaa Valley during the hostage crisis in Lebanon. The Lockerbie conspiracy had been a false flag operation to kill off a joint CIA and Defense Intelligence investigation into kick backs from Islamic Jihad, in exchange for protecting the heroin transit network.

According to my own CIA handler, Dr. Richard Fuisz, who’d been stationed in Lebanon and Syria at the time, the CIA had established a protected drug route from Lebanon to Europe and on to the United States. His statements support other sources that “Operation Corea” allowed Syrian drug dealers led by Monzer al-Kassar (also linked to Oliver North in the Iran-Contra scandal) to ship heroin to the U.S. ON Pan Am flights, in exchange for intelligence on the hostages’ whereabouts in Lebanon. The CIA allegedly made sure that suitcases carrying heroin were not searched at customs. Nicknamed the “Godfather of Terror,” Al Kassar is now serving a prison sentence for conspiring with Colombian drug cartels to assassinate U.S. nationals.

Back in 1988, the Defense Intelligence team in Beirut, led by Maj. Charles Dennis McKee and Matthew Gannon, suspected that CIA infiltration of the heroin network might be prolonging the hostage crisis. If so, the consequence was severe. AP Reporter Terry Anderson got chained in a basement for 7 years, while 96 other high profile western hostages suffered beatings, mock executions and overall trauma. McKee’s team raised the alarms in Washington that a CIA double agent profiting from the narco-dollars might be warning the hostage takers whenever their dragnet closed in. Washington sent a fact-finding team to Lebanon to gather evidence.

On the day it was blown out of the sky, Pan Am 103 was carrying that team of CIA and FBI investigators, the CIA’s Deputy Chief assigned to Beirut, and three Defense Intelligence officers, including McKee and Gannon, on their way to Washington to deliver a report on the CIA’s role in heroin trafficking, and the impact on terrorist financing and the hostage crisis. In short, everyone with direct knowledge of CIA kickbacks from heroin trafficking died on Pan Am 103. A suitcase packed with $500,000 worth of heroin was found in the wreckage. It belonged to investigators, as proof of the corruption.

The punch line was that the U.S. State Department issued an internal travel advisory, warning that government officials should get off that specific flight on that specific day, because Pan Am 103 was expected to get bombed. That’s right, folks! The U.S. had prior knowledge of the attack.

Nobody told Charles McKee or Matthew Gannon, but other military officials and diplomats got pulled off the flight—making room for a group of students from Syracuse University traveling stand by for the Christmas holidays.

It was a monstrous act!  But condemning Megrahi to cover up the CIA’s role in heroin trafficking has struck many Lockerbie afficiandos as grossly unjust. Add the corruption of purchased testimony– $4 million a pop— and Megrahi’s life sentence struck a nerve of obscenity.

It struck Gadhaffi as grievously offensive, as well—The United Nations had forced Libya to fork over $2.7 billion in damages to the Lockerbie families, a rate of $10 million for every death. Once it became clear the U.S. paid two key witnesses $4 million each to commit perjury, spook gossip throughout the summer was rife that Gadhaffi had taken bold action to demand compensation from U.S. (and probably British) oil corporations operating in Libya. More than likely, Libya’s demands for kick backs and compensation extended to other European oil conglomerates as well—particularly France and Italy—who are now spearheading attacks on Libya.

I knew last summer there would be trouble. Payback would be a b—tch on both sides. You don’t lock an innocent man in prison for 10 years on bogus charges of terrorism, and expect forgiveness. The United States and Britain had behaved with remarkable selfishness. You’ve got to admit that Gadhaffi’s attempt to balance the scales of justice demonstrated a flair of righteous nationalism.

Alas, Gadhaffi was playing with fire, no matter how justified his complaint. You don’t strike a tyrant without expecting a tyrant to strike back.

And that’s exactly what’s happening today.

Don’t kid yourself. This is an oil war, and it smacks of imperialist double standards. Two articles by Prof. Chossudovsky at the Global Research Centre are must reading:“Operation Libya and the Battle for Oil: Redrawing the Map of Africa” and “Insurrection and Military Intervention: The US-NATO Attempted Coup d’Etat in Libya?”

There is simply no justification for U.S. or NATO action against Libya. The U.N. charter acknowledges the rights of sovereign nations to put down rebellions against their own governments. Moreover, many observers have commented that plans for military intervention appear to have been much more advanced than U.S. and European leaders want to admit.

For myself, I know in my gut that war planning started months before the democratization movement kicked off throughout the Arab world—a lucky cover for U.S. and European oil policy. Perhaps too lucky.

As Chossudovsky writes, “Hundreds of US, British and French military advisers arrived in Cyrenaica, Libya’s eastern breakaway province” on February 23 and 24— seven (7) days after the start of Gadhaffi’s domestic rebellion. “The advisers, including intelligence officers, were dropped from warships and missile boats at the coastal towns of Benghazi and Tobruk.” (DEBKAfile, US military advisers in Cyrenaica, Feb. 25, 2011) Special forces on the ground in Eastern Libya provided covert support to the rebels.”  Eight British Special Forces commandos were arrested in the Benghazi region, while acting as military advisers to opposition forces, according to the Times of London.

We’re supposed to believe the United States, Britain and Europe planned, coordinated and executed a full military intervention in 7 short days— from the start of the Libyan rebellion in mid-February until military advisers appeared on the ground in Libya on February 23-24!

That’s strategically impossible.

Nothing can persuade me that Gadhaffi’s fate wasn’t decided months ago, when Chevron and Occidental Petroleum took their whining to Capitol Hill, complaining that Gadhaffi’s nationalism interfered with their oil profiteering. From that moment, military intervention was on the drawing board as surely as the Patriot Act got stuck in a drawer waiting for 9/11.

The message is simple: Challenge the oil corporations and your government and your people will pay the ultimate price: Give us your oil as cheaply as possible. Or die.

Don’t kid yourself.  Nobody gives a damn about suffering in Libya or Iraq. You don’t bomb a village to save it. The U.S., Britain and NATO are the bullies of the neighborhood. The enforcers for Big Oil.

Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan have something in common. They have vast and extraordinary mineral riches. As such, they are all victims of what I call the Vampire Wars. The Arab Princes get paid off, while the bloodsuckers pull the life blood out of the people. They’re scarcely able to survive in their own wealthy societies. The people and the domestic economy are kept alive to uphold the social order, but they are depleted of the nourishment of their own national wealth.

The democratization movements are a warning that I don’t think Big Oil, or their protectors in the U.S. and British governments quite understand or have figured out how to control. The Arab people are finished with this cycle of victimization. They’ve got their stakes out, and they’re starting to figure out how to strike into the heart of these Vampires, sucking the life blood out of their nations.

And woe to the wicked when they do!

### END####

This article may be reprinted in full or part with attribution to the author.

Former U.S. Intelligence Asset, Susan Lindauer covered Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Syria/Hezbollah from 1993 to 2003. She is the author of “Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq.”

Lockerbie Diary: Gadhaffi, Fall Guy for CIA Drug Running

Posted: March 4, 2011 by slindauer2010 in Uncategorized


For years I was told the terrorist who placed the bomb on board Pan Am 103, known as the Lockerbie bombing, lives about 8 miles from my house, in Fairfax County, Virginia.

His life-time of privilege and protection, gratis of high flyers in U.S. Intelligence, has been a reward for silence on the CIA’s involvement in drug trafficking in Lebanon during the 1980s.

As sources go, I was more than a casual observer. From May 1995 until March 2003, I performed as a back channel to Tripoli and Baghdad, supervised by my CIA handler, Dr. Richard Fuisz, who claimed from day one to know the origins of the Lockerbie conspiracy and the identity of the terrorists. He swore that no Libyan participated in the attack.

Armed with that assurance, our team started talks with Libya’s diplomats for the Lockerbie Trial, and I attended over 150 meetings at the Libyan Embassy in New York. After the hand over of Libya’s two accused men, our team engaged in a concerted fight to gain permission for Dr. Fuisz to give a deposition about his primary knowledge of the conspiracy, during the Lockerbie Trial. In a surprise twist, the U.S. Federal Judge in Alexandria, Virginia imposed a double seal on a crucial portion of Dr. Fuisz’s deposition. The double seal can only be opened by a Scottish Judge. In my opinion, that should be a priority, as testimony hidden by the double seal maps out the whole Lockerbie conspiracy. Most significantly, it identifies 11 terrorists involved in the attack. Dr. Fuisz’s testimony could put the whole matter to rest forever.

There’s good reason for my confidence. Much to my surprise, during the Lockerbie talks, Dr. Fuisz’s allegations of CIA opium running in Lebanon received unusual corroboration. One day, as I left the office of Senator Carol Moseley-Braun on my lunch break, an older spook caught up with me in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. From out of nowhere, he stepped in my path and invited me to lunch. With extraordinary candor, he debriefed me as to what motivated the CIA’s actions. I remember it as one battle-hardened old spook sharing the perils of fieldwork with a gung ho young Asset, anxious to get started on great adventures.

It was a morality tale for sure. According to him, the CIA infiltrated opium and heroin trafficking in Lebanon as part of a crisis operation to rescue AP reporter Terry Anderson and 11 other American and British hostages in Beirut, including CNN bureau chief Jeremy Levin and Anglican envoy Terry Waite. The hostage crisis was a legitimate CIA concern. The CIA Station Chief of Beirut, William Buckley, was also kidnapped by Islamic Jihad and brutally tortured to death, his body dumped in the street in front of CIA headquarters. The rescue was protracted and complicated by Lebanon’s Civil War—ultimately, Terry Anderson’s captivity lasted seven years. Many of the hostages suffered beatings, solitary confinement chained to the floor, and mock executions.

The older spook who refused to identify himself swore that the CIA considered it urgently necessary to try every possibility for recovering the hostages.

The concept of infiltration into criminal networks cuts to the murky nature of intelligence itself. Drug enforcement frequently rely on the same strategies. Where the CIA went far wrong was in pocketing some of those heroin profits for itself along the way. The dirty little secret is that the CIA continued to take a percentage cut of opium and heroin production out of Lebanon well into the 1990s.

As for the hostage rescue itself, considering the operation took years to accomplish, it’s possible that a corrupted CIA officer enjoying those opium profits might have swallowed reports on the hostages’ locations, or otherwise diverted his team in order to protect his narcotics income. That appears to have become a serious concern among other Intelligence agents jointly involved in the rescue.

In December 1988, infuriated Defense Intelligence agents issued a formal protest, exposing CIA complicity in Middle East heroin trafficking. When teams from both agencies got summoned back to Washington to attend an internal hearing, they boarded Pan Am 103. A wing of militant Hezbollah led by Ahmed Jibril, his nephew Abu Elias, Abu Talb and Abu Nidal took out both teams in order to protect their lucrative cartel.

Classified Defense Intelligence records show that Jibril and Talb had been toying with a conspiracy to bomb a U.S. airplane during the 1988 Christmas holidays anyway. They planned to bomb a U.S. airliner in revenge for the U.S.S. Vincennes, which shot down an Iranian commercial airliner loaded with Hajiis returning from Mecca in July, 1988. However the Defense Intelligence threat to expose their heroin network put the bombing plan into action. Islamic Jihad’s ability to discover actionable intelligence on the flight schedules would definitely confirm that somebody at CIA was operating as a double agent, keeping Islamic Jihad a step ahead of the rescue efforts.

That’s the dirty truth about Lockerbie. It ain’t nothing like you’ve been told.

Wait a darn moment—I anticipate your confusion. Libya got blamed for the Lockerbie attack. Daddy George Bush told us so! The United Nations imposed sanctions on Libya, demanding that Colonel Moammar Gadhaffi hand over two Libyans for trial. One of the two, Lameen Fhima got acquitted immediately. The other Abdelbasset Megrahi got convicted (on the most flimsy circumstantial evidence that overlooked endless contradictions). Libya paid $2.7 billion in damages—amounting to $10 million per family death— to make the U.N. sanctions go away, and expressed a sort of non-apology for the deaths—while never acknowledging its involvement in the conspiracy.

So Libya was innocent the whole time? In a word, yes.

Don’t get me wrong: I have no soft spot for Libya. As an Asset, I saw that no matter the flowing promises of friendship, at heart Libyans hearken to their glory days as Bedouin raiders. It’s pathological, not personal. They are deeply tribal and Islamic, which often makes them paranoid and suspicious of outsiders. They have an ancient history of raiding each other’s camps, back and forth, stealing livestock, women and children. One of my best diplomatic sources had a tattoo on his wrist, because his grandmother feared he would be kidnapped as a small child (in the 1950s). Libya simply does not have a history of believing that it needs to keep promises to individuals outside their clans. That’s not part of their heritage.

That vendetta culture bodes dangerously for the current rebellion. Even after Gadhaffi’s gone, in all likelihood these tribal families will continue to exact vengeance on one another. It remains to be seen whether the new government will hide those clashes to protect its image of cohesion and legitimacy to the outside world. In truth, Libyan culture poses a threat to itself most of all.

I don’t say that about just any Arab country. I know better than to do favors for Gadhaffi. His actions often mask some other agenda.

But the bottom line is that Libya had nothing to do with the bombing of Pan Am 103, which exploded over the town of Lockerbie, Scotland.

We should care about Lockerbie because of the serious problem that it exposed. Opium trafficking out of the Bekaa Valley provides a major source for global heroin production. In turn, the global pipeline of narco-dollars keep militant operations alive world-wide from the Middle East to Indonesia, Colombia, Burma and the Far East.

And that’s something to fear. We don’t have to deploy soldiers to shut it down. With a little creativity, we could attack the bank accounts of these global heroin traffickers and cut off funds for the violence without damaging the local society through warfare. We could strike down two scourges—heroin and terrorism. And the U.S. would not require military action all over the planet to accomplish its goals. Thankfully, there are other ways.

The first step is recognition.


This article may be republished in all or part, with attribution to the author


US, EU, NATO want Libya … Why ?

Monday, March 28th, 2011

The Anti-Empire Report

March 28th, 2011
by William Blum

Libya and The Holy Triumvirate

The words they find it very difficult to say — “civil war”.

Libya is engaged in a civil war. The United States and the European Union and NATO — The Holy Triumvirate — are intervening, bloodily, in a civil war. To overthrow Moammar Gaddafi. First The Holy Triumvirate spoke only of imposing a no-fly zone. After getting support from international bodies on that understanding they immediately began to wage war against Libyan military forces, and whoever was nearby, on a daily basis. In the world of commerce this is called “bait and switch”.

Gaddafi’s crime? He was never respectful enough of The Holy Triumvirate, which recognizes no higher power, and maneuvers the United Nations for its own purposes, depending on China and Russia to be as spineless and hypocritical as Barack Obama. The man the Triumvirate allows to replace Gaddafi will be more respectful.

So who are the good guys? The Libyan rebels, we’re told. The ones who go around murdering and raping African blacks on the supposition that they’re all mercenaries for Gaddafi. One or more of the victims may indeed have been members of a Libyan government military battalion; or may not have been. During the 1990s, in the name of pan-African unity, Gaddafi opened the borders to tens of thousands of sub-Saharan Africans to live and work in Libya. That, along with his earlier pan-Arab vision, did not win him points with The Holy Triumvirate. Corporate bosses have the same problem about their employees forming unions. Oh, and did I mention that Gaddafi is strongly anti-Zionist?

Does anyone know what kind of government the rebels would create? The Triumvirate has no idea. To what extent will the new government embody an Islamic influence as opposed to the present secular government? What jihadi forces might they unleash? (And these forces do indeed exist in eastern Libya, where the rebels are concentrated.) Will they do away with much of the welfare state that Gaddafi used his oil money to create? Will the state-dominated economy be privatized? Who will wind up owning Libya’s oil? Will the new regime continue to invest Libyan oil revenues in sub-Saharan African development projects? Will they allow a US military base and NATO exercises? Will we find out before long that the “rebels” were instigated and armed by Holy Triumvirate intelligence services?

In the 1990s, Slobodan Milosevic of Yugoslavia was guilty of “crimes” similar to Gaddafi’s. His country was commonly referred to as “the last communists of Europe”. The Holy Triumvirate bombed him, arrested him, and let him die in prison. The Libyan government, it should be noted, refers to itself as the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. American foreign policy is never far removed from the Cold War.

We must look closely at the no-fly zone set up for Iraq by the US and the UK (falsely claimed by them as being authorized by the United Nations) beginning in the early 1990s and lasting more than a decade. It was in actuality a license for very frequent bombing and killing of Iraqi citizens; softening up the country for the coming invasion. The no-fly zone-cum invasion force in Libya is killing people every day with no end in sight, softening up the country for regime change. Who in the universe can stand up to The Holy Triumvirate? Has the entire history of the world ever seen such power and such arrogance?

And by the way, for the 10th time, Gaddafi did not carry out the bombing of PanAm Flight 103 in 1988.1 Please enlighten your favorite progressive writers on this.

Barack “I’d kill for a peace prize” Obama

Is anyone keeping count?

I am. Libya makes six.

Six countries that Barack H. Obama has waged war against in his 26 months in office. (To anyone who disputes that dropping bombs on a populated land is act of war, I would ask what they think of the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.)

America’s first black president now invades Africa.

Is there anyone left who still thinks that Barack Obama is some kind of improvement over George W. Bush?

Probably two types still think so. 1) Those to whom color matters a lot; 2) Those who are very impressed by the ability to put together grammatically correct sentences.

It certainly can’t have much otherwise to do with intellect or intelligence. Obama has said numerous things, which if uttered by Bush would have inspired lots of rolled eyeballs, snickers, and chuckling reports in the columns and broadcasts of mainstream media. Like the one the president has repeated on a number of occasions when pressed to investigate Bush and Cheney for war crimes, along the lines of “I prefer to look forward rather than backwards”. Picture a defendant before a judge asking to be found innocent on such grounds. It simply makes laws, law enforcement, crime, justice, and facts irrelevant.

There’s also the excuse given by Obama to not prosecute those engaged in torture: because they were following orders. Has this “educated” man never heard of the Nuremberg Trials, where this defense was summarily rejected? Forever, it was assumed.

Just 18 days before the Gulf oil spill Obama said: “It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills. They are technologically very advanced.” (Washington Post, May 27, 2010) Picture George W. having said this, and the later reaction.

“All the forces that we’re seeing at work in Egypt are forces that naturally should be aligned with us, should be aligned with Israel,” Obama said in early March.2 Imagine if Bush had implied this — that the Arab protesters in Egypt against a man receiving billions in US aid including the means to repress and torture them, should “naturally” be aligned with the United States and — God help us — Israel.

A week later, on March 10, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told a forum in Cambridge, Mass. that Wikileaks hero Bradley Manning’s treatment by the Defense Department in a Marine prison was “ridiculous, counterproductive and stupid.” The next day our “brainy” president was asked about Crowley’s comment. Replied the Great Black Hope: “I have actually asked the Pentagon whether or not the procedures that have been taken in terms of his confinement are appropriate and are meeting our basic standards. They assure me that they are.”

Right, George. I mean Barack. Bush should have asked Donald Rumsfeld whether anyone in US custody was being tortured anywhere in the world. He could then have held a news conference like Obama did to announce the happy news — “No torture by America!” We would still be chortling at that one.

Obama closed his remark with: “I can’t go into details about some of their concerns, but some of this has to do with Pvt. Manning’s safety as well.” 3

Ah yes, of course, Manning is being tortured for his own good. Someone please remind me — Did Georgieboy ever stoop to using that particular absurdity to excuse prisoner hell at Guantanamo?

Is it that Barack Obama is not bothered by the insult to Bradley Manning’s human rights, the daily wearing away of this brave young man’s mental stability?

The answer to the question is No. The president is not bothered by these things.

How do I know? Because Barack Obama is not bothered by anything as long as he can exult in being the president of the United States, eat his hamburgers, and play his basketball. Let me repeat once again what I first wrote in May 2009:

The problem, I’m increasingly afraid, is that the man doesn’t really believe strongly in anything, certainly not in controversial areas. He learned a long time ago how to take positions that avoid controversy, how to express opinions without clearly taking sides, how to talk eloquently without actually saying anything, how to leave his listeners’ heads filled with stirring clichés, platitudes, and slogans. And it worked. Oh how it worked! What could happen now, having reached the presidency of the United States, to induce him to change his style?

Remember that in his own book, “The Audacity of Hope”, Obama wrote: “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”

Obama is a product of marketing. He is the prime example of the product “As seen on TV”.

Writer Sam Smith recently wrote that Obama is the most conservative Democratic president we’ve ever had. “In an earlier time, there would have been a name for him: Republican.”

Indeed, if John McCain had won the 2008 election, and then done everything that Obama has done in exactly the same way, liberals would be raging about such awful policies.

I believe that Barack Obama is one of the worst things that has ever happened to the American left. The millions of young people who jubilantly supported him in 2008, and numerous older supporters, will need a long recovery period before they’re ready to once again offer their idealism and their passion on the altar of political activism.

If you don’t like how things have turned out, next time find out exactly what your candidate means when he talks of “change”.

Dear Lord, please save us from the Holy Republican Empire

Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, John Boehner, and many other Republicans often find it difficult to speak about domestic or foreign issues without bringing religion into the picture. Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner, for example, in a recent talk at the National Religious Broadcasters conference stated that America’s national debt is a “moral hazard.” The Washington Post (March 5, 2011) reported that “Boehner made clear that this fiscal crisis requires people to get on their knees.”

Rep. Joe Barton of Texas justified his opposition to controlling greenhouse gases because “you can’t regulate God.”

Arizona Senator Jon Kyl accused Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid of “disrespecting one of the two holiest of holidays for Christians” for considering keeping Congress in session during Christmas.

Rep. Steve King of Iowa compared Democrats to Pontius Pilate, the ancient Roman official who sentenced Jesus to be crucified.4

And South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint recently declared that “the bigger government gets, the smaller God gets. … America works, freedom works, when people have that internal gyroscope that comes from a belief in God and Biblical faith. Once we push that out, you no longer have the capacity to live as a free person without the external controls of an authoritarian government. I’ve said it often and I believe it –– the bigger government gets, the smaller God gets. As people become more dependent on government, less dependent on God.” 5

So, in a futile attempt to enlighten the likes of these esteemed Republican members of Congress, I feel obliged to point out the following:

On the 4th day of November 1796, a “Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary” was concluded at Tripoli [Libya]. Article 11 of the treaty begins: “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion … ” Be it further noted: Article VI, Section II, of the United States Constitution states: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

The creed of America’s founders was neither Christianity nor secularism, but religious liberty.

After the terrorist attacks of 9-11, a Taliban leader declared that “God is on our side, and if the world’s people try to set fire to Afghanistan, God will protect us and help us.” 6

“With or without religion, good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things — that takes religion.” — Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize-winning physicist

The Bad Guys

I’ve written on many occasions about America’s ODE — Officially Designated Enemies: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chávez, Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Hasan Nasrallah, Moammar Gaddafi, and others. Once the government of the United States of America makes it clear that an individual foreign leader is not one of the Good Guys, that he doesn’t believe that America is God’s gift to humankind, and that he is not willing to allow his country to become an obedient client state, the US mainstream media invariably picks up on this and goes out of its way to denigrate the individual at every opportunity. (If any reader knows of any exceptions to this rule I’d be interested in hearing from them.)

Juan Forero has long been a Latin American correspondent for the Washington Post. He’s also the same for National Public Radio. I used to send letters to the Post pointing out how Forero was distorting the facts each time he wrote about Hugo Chávez, errors of omission compounded with errors of commission. None were printed, so I began to send my missives directly to Forero. He once actually replied saying that he (sort of) agreed with me on the point I had raised and implied that he would try to avoid similar errors in the future. I actually detected some improvement after that for a short period, then it was back to usual. During the current unrest in Libya he wrote: “Chavez said it ‘was a great lie’ that Gaddafi’s forces had attacked civilians.” 7

Well, how stupid can Hugo Chávez think the world is? We’ve all seen and read of Gaddafi’s attacks on civilians.

But it turns out that if you find the original Spanish you get a fuller and different picture. According to the United Press International (UPI) Spanish-language report, Chávez said that the fighting in Libya was a civil war and those who were attacked were thus not simply protestors or civilians; they were on the other side of the civil war; i.e., combatants. 8

Al Jazeera in America

The uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East have given a great boost to al Jazeera, the television network based in Doha, Qatar. Until recently Americans shied away from the station; it was just too easily associated with the Middle East and Muslims, which of course leads easily to thinking about terrorists and “terrorists”; and certainly any well-brought-up American knew that the station could not be as unbiased as CBS, CNN, NPR or Fox News. The station had reason to be paranoid about its office in the United States, land of ten million crazies (more than a few of them holding public office). It occupies six floors in a downtown Washington, DC office building, but its name doesn’t appear on the building directory.

But US mainstream media now quote al Jazeera English and show their news footage. Many progressives, including myself, have taken to watching the station in preference to US mainstream media. In general, the news is of more substance, the guests are mainly more or less progressive, and there are no commercials. However, the more I watch it the more I realize that the station’s presenters and correspondents are not necessarily as well imbued with the progressive perspective as they should be.

One case in point of many I could give: On March 12 al Jazeera correspondent Roger Wilkinson was reporting about the trial in Cuba of Alan Gross, the American arrested after he dispensed electronic equipment to Cuban citizens. Gross entered Cuba as a tourist but was actually there in behalf of Development Alternatives Inc. (DAI), a private contractor working for the Agency for International Development (AID), a division of the State Department. Gross was thus a covert unregistered agent of a foreign government. Wilkinson reported this very controversial story with all the innocence and distortion of the US mainstream media. He mentioned in passing that the Cuban government tries to control the Internet. What can one conclude from that other than that Cuban officials want to hide certain information from its citizens? Just like the US mainstream media, Wilkinson gave no examples of any Internet sites blocked by the Cuban government; for the simple reason, perhaps, that there aren’t any. What is the terrible truth that Cubans might learn if they had full access to the Internet? Ironically, it’s the US government and US multinationals who impinge upon this access, for political reasons and by pricing their services beyond Cuba’s means. This is why Cuba and Venezuela are building their own undersea cable connection.

Wilkinson spoke of AID’s program of “democracy promotion”, but gave no hint that in the world of AID and the private organizations that contract with it — including Gross’s employer — this term is code for “regime change”. AID has long played a subversive role in world affairs. Here is John Gilligan, Director of AID during the Carter administration:

“At one time, many AID field offices were infiltrated from top to bottom with CIA people. The idea was to plant operatives in every kind of activity we had overseas, government, volunteer, religious, every kind.” 9

AID has been but one of many institutions employed by the United States for more than 50 years to subvert the Cuban revolution. It is because of this that we can formulate this equation: The United States is to the Cuban government like al Qaeda is to American government. Cuba’s laws dealing with activities typically carried out by the likes of AID and DAI reflect this history. It’s not paranoia. It’s self-preservation. In discussing a case like Alan Gross without considering this equation is a serious defect in journalism and political analysis.

Hopefully the Gross case will serve to temper the nature of US “democracy promotion” efforts in Cuba.

Washington’s policy — and therefore Britain’s policy — toward Cuba has always stemmed mainly from a desire to keep the island from becoming a good example for the Third World of an alternative to capitalism. But Western leaders actually do not, or do not dare, understand what can motivate people like the Cuban leaders and their followers. Here’s one of the Wikileaks US-Embassy cables, March 25, 2009 — William Hague, then-British Conservative MP and Shadow Foreign Secretary, giving the US embassy in London a report on his recent visit to Cuba: Hague “said that he was slightly surprised that the Cuban leadership did not appear to be moving toward more of a Chinese model of economic opening, but were rather still ‘romantic revolutionaries’.” In his conversation with Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez “the discussion turned to political ideology, during which Hague commented that people in Britain were more interested in shopping than ideology.” [Oh dear, what a jolly good defense of the Western way of life. Rule Britannia! God Bless America!] Hague then reported that “Rodriguez appeared disdainful of the notion and said one needed shopping only to buy food and a few good books.”

Japan devastated by an earthquake and tsunami. America devastated by the profit motive.

Christine Todd Whitman, George W. Bush’s first Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator, speaking of how the nuclear industry has learned from every previous nuclear accident or disaster: “It’s safer than working in a grocery store,” she said.

Whitman is now co-chairwoman of the nuclear industry’s Clean and Safe Energy Coalition. 10

Upcoming talks by William Blum

Saturday, April 2, 7:00 pm
University of Pittsburgh at Titusville, PA

504 East Main Street
Henne Auditorium
Titusville is about 2 hours by car from Pittsburgh and 2 1/2 hours from Cleveland.
For further information call 888-878-0462
Or email Mary Ann Caton:

Thursday, May 19
Paris, France

Conference: “Ethics and US Foreign Policy in the 21st Century”
Université de Paris Ouest-Nanterre-La Défense, Amphi B-2
All day, beginning at 9 am
Email me for full schedule


  2. March 4, 2011, Democratic Party function, Miami, FL, CQ Transcriptions
  3. Los Angeles Times, March 11, 2011
  4. For this and the previous two examples, see “Jim DeMint’s Theory Of Relativity: ‘The Bigger Government Gets, The Smaller God Gets’“, Think Progress, March 15, 2011
  5. Fox News Sunday, December 19, 2010
  6. Washington Post, September 19, 2001
  7. Washington Post, March 7, 2011
  8. UPI Reporte LatAm, March 4, 2011 (email me for the text)
  9. George Cotter, “Spies, strings and missionaries”, The Christian Century (Chicago), March 25, 1981, p.321
  10. Former EPA chief: Nuke crisis ‘a very good lesson’“, Politico, March 14, 2011

William Blum is the author of:

  • Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2
  • Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower
  • West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir
  • Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire

Portions of the books can be read, and signed copies purchased, at

Previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read at this website.

To add yourself to this mailing list simply send an email to bblum6 [at] with “add” in the subject line. I’d like your name and city in the message, but that’s optional. I ask for your city only in case I’ll be speaking in your area.

(Or put “remove” in the subject line to do the opposite.)

Any part of this report may be disseminated without permission. I’d appreciate it if the website were mentioned.


Kill or Be Killed …?

Sunday, March 27th, 2011

“To be or not to be,” …

why is that the question ?

By WJ Anthony

What would you call a person that is much admired or of great courage, who can conquer fear or despair?  Is that what ‘we the people’ look to find in those we elect to leadership positions in our government?  Does it sound like the definition for a hero – bold, fearless, distinguished by valor, undaunted?

When we hear those words and see the efforts of the officials that we elect, is that the image that comes to mind when we vote for the people we want to serve this nation in Congress?  Is that the image of the men or women that are chosen by the President to carry out the responsibility as members of the Executive Cabinet?  Is that the image that we the people have of the person we elect as President?

Do we think our elected or appointed officials handle the powers of government, as the Declaration of Independence tells us?  Do those officials secure our unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?  Do those officials agree on what the pursuit of Happiness means?  Does the President and the officials agree with what the people think it means?  Do the people agree with each other on what anything means?

Wars, like the new one now in Libya, have engulfed the American people for the past 71 years and have killed and injured millions of people in other countries, but rarely have those wars victimized more than a few elected officials who supported the wars.  Their children were protected and never touched as victims of war.

The media and the schools portray war officials as leaders, without revealing why those officials support the cruel and vicious process of using total warfare to accomplish the death and destruction of enemies.  Instead of using negotiation to resolve conflict and achieve peace, they support the terror, because war is the most profitable business of all.

Years ago, I saw one of the most gripping movies of all time: “All Quiet On The Western Front.”  It was made in Germany during the 1930s, depicting the German side of World War I.  It started with a scene in a school for boys, in a class with a teacher who lectured the boys about the greatness of German history and patriotism, praising the valor of German soldiers as the greatest of all Germans.

The teacher encouraged the boys to enlist in the infantry to experience the admiration of being a uniformed soldier and a hero, but after their enlistment, the front lines of military combat soon shocked the naivety of the schoolboys with the carnage and gruesome reality of killing and being killed.  The most impressive point of the film for me was the scene when some of the boys were resting during a break in the front line conflict.  The boys asked their crusty sergeant “Who is the Kaiser?”

The sergeant answered, “The Kaiser is the man that the bullet never reaches.”  They asked who starts wars and is there an alternative for war, to which the sergeant suggested a solution: “Fence off an area and put there the leaders of the countries who are at war, from all sides; give them each a club and demand that they fight each other inside that fenced area; whoever is the last man alive, his country will have won the war.”  As I recall, I think the sergeant said that once the leaders were forced to enter the fence with clubs to kill each other, they would look at each other and quickly agree to an understanding that they didn’t need to kill each other to solve the dispute between their countries; they could negotiate a peaceful solution that would not require war.

If we bring that lesson to our present day with the US carrying on four wars, what could we expect to happen if the UN agreed to establish a rule that required a fenced engagement confrontation between rulers of nations in settling disputes?  If Obama or Sarkozy were to meet Muammar Gaddafi in a fenced engagement area, would they likely ask to negotiate a peaceful resolution immediately?

Neither Obama nor Sarkozy have military battle experience.  Sarkozy escaped probable death, when a friendly French officer chose to not send him to join a French Foreign Legion that would be killed at the battle of Dien Bien Phu in Vietnam.

Obama never served in military duty; mentored as he apparently was from childhood to emerge to the presidency.  He had no need to kill or be killed or ever face that situation.

Gaddafi, in contrast, has had fierce military experience, similar to many African freedom fighters and leaders, who fought to free their people from Europe’s brutal colonial military powers that had subjugated the people of Africa for generations.  Gaddafi knows what was required to free people from colonial rule.  As a young man, Patrice Lumumba of the Congo gave his life to free his people from the cruelty of European colonialism.  Gaddafi also put his life on the line to keep Libya free from colonial domination.

In a fenced engagement with Gaddafi, would Obama or Sarkozy choose to resolve a dispute peacefully and save their lives instead of declaring war?

If a fenced engagement confrontation had been adopted years ago as a world law, would American presidents from FDR to Obama have deceptively contrived those wars?

FDR and Truman never faced front line combat.  Eisenhower never had to dodge bullets; he was appointed to command the allied invasion of Europe.  The bombs and bullets of the D-Day invasion and other fierce battles that followed, never reached “Ike”.

John Kennedy was involved in a battle as an officer in charge of an attack boat but was rescued after his boat was damaged and about to sink.  LBJ and Nixon never saw combat.  Carter served as a submarine commander, but there was no combat during The Cold War.

Ronald Reagan was dressed occasionally in a military uniform for a movie role, but saw no combat or military service.  His Vice-President, George H. W. Bush was a fighter pilot in the Navy, but fellow servicemen in his squadron saw him deliberately ditch his fighter plane in a dive to the sea, then bail out, deliberately causing his navigator and gunner to die in the crash.  It is suggested in an article on the Internet that their deaths were necessary, because they knew Bush’s background as a German spy, and the plane that he was piloting had technical gun secrets that the German military had wanted.  A German submarine surfaced at the crash site and obtained the plane’s gun secrets.

Two published sources claim GHW Bush was actually a German spy who was clandestinely brought to the US under the cover of being the son of Prescott Bush.  Those sources are available on the net: one source is the article in the April 2007 edition of the Idaho Observer, which revealed evidence from Hitler’s bodyguard, Otto Skorzeny’s Deathbed Confessions.  It shows a picture of George HW and his true father and others.

A startling CD was available by purchase on the website revealing Skorzeny, who lived the remainder of his life in postwar US. He was brought here with hundreds of German intelligence experts under Project Paper Clip by Wild Bill Donavan to help Donavan combine the German Intelligence and US intelligence, which became the CIA.

George HW. Bush instigated a lie, that he had Ambassador April Glaspie tell Saddam Hussein, to mislead Saddam to think Bush would not object if Saddam reclaimed Kuwait as a province of Iraq, which it was before the British separated it from Iraq.

Some researchers say Bill Clinton is the illegitimate son of Winthrop A. Rockefeller who became the Republican Governor of Arkansas 1967-1971.  Clinton never served in the military; he lived in Britain and opposed the US in the Viet war. Yet he supported the fierce NATO war in Yugoslavia and the later Bush wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

George W. Bush never saw any form of military combat, but had been arranged by his father to join the National Guard and remain AWOL throughout the war, so he wouldn’t be drafted to serve in Vietnam and risk his life as a combat draftee.

Would we have wars, if there was an international law that required all rulers to negotiate a peaceful resolution of all disputes that might arise between nations; or they would be bodily confined to a fenced enclosure area with the opposing ruler; each of the rulers would be supplied with a hand-held club and be given a designated period of time, during which they would be required to resolve the dispute amicably or settle it by successfully clubbing to death their opposing executive.  If they had not peacefully resolved the issue or killed their opponent, the UN would execute them there.

If such a system were enacted that allowed executive rulers no exemptions in their responsibility to peaceably resolve disputes  – would rulers support peace on earth?

Why did … Obama Betray Libya ?

Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011

The Surprising PNAC  Connection to Libya


Thanks to The Intel Hub

Before Its News
by Zen Gardner
March 21st, 2011

Looks like the PNAC, or Project for A New American Century, agenda of 1997 is rolling along as planned. Just as has been outlined by other think tanks, Illuminati writers and social programmers.

PNAC (Photo:

But a blind world reels on the defensive when they could have known what was coming all along.  Notice, mind you, that the portrayal of an unstable middle east includes every “rogue” nation BUT Israel. Israel oddly enough is never “on the table” for discussion, when in fact they are the fomentors and co-creators of the entire “terrorist” threat fabrication.

Recent Developments

If you want to know exactly what’s happening or about to transpire, keep an eye on Neocons like Bill Kristol at rabid Zionist Murdock’s Fox News, the former head of PNAC when they made their famous study, proposal and ‘Statement of Principles’ preceding the staged 9/11 events and ensuing bogus “war on terror”.

It looks like despite Obama’s “promises” to not send troops, we’re about do it anyway. Surprise. So expect a real good reason to be fabricated soon, like tales of horrific atrocities by Gaddafi, to make sure the public is behind it. A false flag or two within Libya is probably on the table right now, like the staged theatre fire massacre in Abadan, Iran during the Iran revolution.

Kristol “Announces” the Plan

Here’s Kristol’s “announcement” that “we will not leave Gaddafi in power”:

(Raw Story) The operation to create a no-fly zone in Libya has just begun, but already conservative Fox News pundit Bill Kristol is wishing the U.S. would send in ground troops “sooner rather than later.”

U.S. President Barack Obama said Saturday the “Odyssey Dawn” operation launched under a UN Security Council resolution was a “limited military action,” unlike the regime change aims of the war against Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.

He pledged no U.S. troops would be deployed on the ground.

Fox News Chris Wallace asked Kristol Sunday if it was a mistake to limit the mission in Libya.

“Let’s talk about the mission,” Wallace began. “You heard Admiral Mullen, earlier in the show, say his orders are clear: protect the civilians, don’t overthrow Gaddafi. That’s not the point. Is that a mistake? Can we live with Gaddafi in any sort of power? He can create a lot of trouble.”

“No, we cannot leave Gaddafi in power,” Kristol agreed. “And we won’t leave Gaddafi in power.”

“The immediate military mission, Admiral Mullen correctly described but the political goal is to remove Gaddafi and ultimately military assets will serve that political goal.” (source)

Bastard comes to mind.

PNAC- Project for a New American Century Agenda Rolls On

If you’ve done your homework you know this neocon “think tank” led by Kristol at the turn of the century announced their intentions to militarize the US and roll on through the middle east towards global hegemony. Almost all signatories of the PNAC Statement were also members of the Council on Foreign Relations, the admitted steering committee on U.S. policy.

However, they needed to galvanize the American people behind such a move.

“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor”.

What has transpired since 9/11 has been an ongoing fulfillment of their plan. See the original document for yourself and decide if all that’s transpiring now isn’t a fulfullment of their Statement of Principles.

To Summarize the PNAC Goals in their own words in 1997: (emphasis mine)

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration’s success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces
for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

<• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

How terribly altruistic and unselfish of them.  Unbelievably Machiavellian yet the world is forced to swallow it.

PNAC Checklist Almost Complete

Let’s see how they’re faring on the above-stated agenda:

  • Increase defense spending: CHECK. “in the past 10 years, defense spending has accounted for two-thirds of the growth in (government) discretionary spending.” (Source) Astronomical defense (war) spending is not only killing the American economy, but its unwitting soldiers and millions of innocent foreign nationals.
  • Challenge Regimes: CHECK. “if you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists”. Is that broad enough? How many countries has the U.S. machine invaded, bombed, poisoned, infiltrated and subverted in the past 10-14 years alone…never mind the rest of its sordid history?
  • Promote political and economic freedom abroad. CHECK. Multinationals just about have full global sway and control as sovereign economies are sacrificed to the Globalist banking cabal. What freedom–for them. As for political freedom, the whole world’s practically on lock down now, thanks to the bogus Orwellian “war on terror”.
  • Extend an international order friendly to OUR security, OUR prosperity, and OUR principles. CHECK. And to hell with what anyone else says or thinks.

The Importance of the Move to take Libya

Most people do not realize the historical strategic importance of Libya in the Middle East and Europe. More will be coming out about this as the days play out, but here’s a few points to ponder:

Libya is not peripheral to the world system. It is at its very core. Libya possesses 1,800 kilometers of Mediterranean coastline. The country produces 2 percent of the world’s oil, with 85 percent of exports going to Europe. Libyan nationals have been prominent jihadists in Iraq. Since the beginning of the Great Recession and the slump in global demand in 2008, Libya has allocated $200 billion toward new infrastructure spending.

This same article goes on to tell us exactly WHY Libya is so important and vital to U.S. and globalist interests:

But a brief review of Libya’s history demonstrates that Britain, France, Italy, Russia, the United Nations, and the United States have long had a great deal at stake in Libya, even before oil was discovered in 1959. Today, it is a paramount American interest that Libya not return to being a rogue state or descend into civil war. If Libyan leader Muammar al-Gadhafi reasserts control over the east or even if he fails and the country is cleaved in two, U.S. interests in the region would suffer a major setback.

What makes Libya so important? Any real estate agent could tell you: location, location, location. Control of the country has always been a remarkably effective way to project power into Egypt, the Mediterranean, and beyond. Similarly, denying a hostile power (be it the Soviet Union, Muammar al-Gadhafi, or terrorists) the ability to destabilize surrounding countries from Libyan territory has been a consistent thread in U.S. policy since the end of World War II. (more history of the region with NPR spin HERE)

Areas of strategic importance for Libya


It’s clear this is going down fast and emphatically. The work to gain supposed “international consensus” via the UN was quicker and more decisive and far reaching than any international policing move on their part.

That says a lot. While most of the world knows it’s mainly once again a U.S. aggression to keep consolidating its hold on the Middle East, the message is clearer daily that a global police force is being positioned in the world’s mind.

Expect to see a lot more of that. It’s in the language, positioning and rhetoric.

It’s propaganda warfare most of all. And ushering in the New World Order is their main objective.

I’ll end with an apt quote:

This “War on Terror” is 100% absolute, utter theater. The very people making trillions from the wars are now purposefully generating hatred, division and animosity to continue their lucrative genocide and continue their designs of world domination they openly write about.

The danger when confronted with a news story, especially a controversial one, by not asking yourself the important questions, is being forever trapped in a false paradigm. A cage not of steel, but of your own ignorance. One within which you may send your son off to die because you fell for absolute utter theater put on by a single organization with soulless scum posing in different masks on opposing sides. Always click “About Us” and never settle on a conclusion until you have all the facts. Knowledge is power; that is not a cliche that is literally the difference between freedom and slavery, life and death. Source

Keep your eyes peeled and heart open,


Did HAARP attack Japan ?

Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011

HAARP Magnetometer data shows Japan earthquake was induced.

Posted by PC Latest news, World news Tuesday, March 15th, 2011

The United States Air Force and Navy has provided a visual insight into what caused the 9.0 magnitude off of Japan on March 11, 2011 at 05:46:23 UTC.  The image above was downloaded from the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) website.  It is a time-frequency spectrogram, which shows the frequency content of signals recorded by the HAARP Induction Magnetometer. This instrument, provided by the University of Tokyo, measures temporal variations in the geomagnetic field (Earth’s magnetosphere) in the ULF (ultra-low frequency) range of 0-5 Hz.  Notions have been added to the image to show you what was happening the day the Japan earthquake and tsunami struck.

By looking at the accompanying HAARP spectrum chart above you can see when the 9.0 magnitude earthquake struck – red line drawn vertically – and what was happening before and after the earthquake.  What you can also see is a constant ULF frequency of 2.5 Hz being recorded by the magnetometer.  The ULF 2.5 Hz frequency is evidence of an induced earthquake.  The chart recorded this constant before, during and after the 9.0 magnitude earthquake struck.  On March 11, 2011 the 2.5 Hz ULF frequency was being emitted and recorded from 0:00 hours to about 10:00 hours – or for 10 hours.  We know for a fact that the Japan earthquake lasted only a few minutes so why was the earthquake signature frequency (2.5 Hz) being recorded for 10 hours on the morning of March 11, 2011?  Because a HAARP phased array antenna system was broadcasting (transmitting) the 2.5Hz ULF frequency and it triggered the Japan earthquake and ensuing tsunami.

If you go to HAARP’s official website you can see for yourself that the 2.5 Hz ULF frequency wasn’t only being broadcated for 10 hours, it was constantly being broadcasted for 2 days prior to the earthquake.  Broadcasting began on March 8, 2011, just before midnight as you can see on HAARP’s website page –  Click on the Next Day link to see that the earthquake inducing 2.5 Hz ULF frequency was being broadcasted for the entire days of March 9, 2011 and March 10, 2011.  Even though the signature frequency of an earthquake was shown throughout March 9 and March 10 there were no constant earthquakes occurring off the east coast of Japan.

What is the significance of a 2.5 Hz ULF broadcast?  The natural resonance of an earthquake is 2.5 Hz.  Scientists working for the United States military discovered this using the phased array antennas at the HAARP facility in Alaska.  HAARP’s own charts suggests that earthquakes occurred constantly for 3 days.  We know for a fact that they haven’t.

The HAARP magnetometer data provides proof that the Japan earthquake was not a naturally occurring quake – it was triggered.  This data shows us that a HAARP military installation was broadcasting the known earthquake signature frequency in order to trigger a major earthquake.  The broadcast was most likely being transmitted from a floating HAARP system like the floating Sea-Based X-Band Radar platform that can be moved anywhere in the Pacific or Atlantic ocean under the protection of a carrier strike group – like the USS Ronald Regan.  Where was the USS Ronald Reagan on the morning of March 11, 2011?  According to a Stars & Stripes March 9, 2011 report – Reagan carrier group steams toward South Korea to join exercise.

Evidence or Conspiracy theory?

Is this evidence or just a bunch of nonsense attached to a baseless conspiracy theory and recklessly made public by a crackpot?  The above image is of the HAARP Sea-Based X-Band Radar (SBX) platform which does exist – not a conspiracy theory.  The preceding link is to the United States Navy website.  What is sitting on top of the deck of the SBX is a phased array antenna – a key component of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) GMD system – clearly not a conspiracy theory.

The military vessel includes power plant, a bridge, control rooms, living quarters, storage areas and the infrastructure necessary to support the massive X-band radar. The SBX radar is the most sophisticated phased array, electro-mechanically steered X-band radar in the world – according to Boeing claims. The phased array antenna consists of thousands of antennas driven by transmit/receive modules.  The radar is designed and built by Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems for Boeing, the prime contractor on the project for the United States Missile Defense Agency (MDA).  Boeing, Raytheon and MDA exists – also not a conspiracy theory.

HAARP does exists.  The HAARP program is no secret.  Their own website states that: The HAARP program is committed to developing a world class ionospheric research facility consisting of:  The Ionospheric Research Instrument (IRI), a high power transmitter facility operating in the High Frequency (HF) range. The IRI will be used to temporarily excite a limited area of the ionosphere for scientific study. Even World renowned Stanford University knows about and publishes reports on the activities at the HAARP installations – Experiments with the HAARP Ionospheric Heater  According to Stanford –

The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) facility is located in Gakona, Alaska at 62.39º N, 145.15º W, near mile 11 of the Tok Cutoff Highway. The facility houses many diagnostic instruments for studying the ionosphere, but the highlight is the HF transmitter array. This array consists of 15×12 crossed dipole antennas, which together can transmit a total of 3600kW of RF power at frequencies from 2.8 – 10 MHz (HF, high frequency range). This power is partially absorbed by the ionosphere, and though only a tiny fraction of the power it naturally receives from the sun, can still produce subtle changes that can be detected with sensitive instruments.

The VLF group focuses on using HAARP to generate ELF and VLF waves through a process called modulated heating. Such experiments have been conducted since 1999.

This is … a Must Read !

Monday, March 21st, 2011

Thanks to Personal Liberty Digest

March 21, 2011

The New Battle Cry: Attack Libya!

March 21, 2011 by Bob Livingston

The warmongers, neocons (is that redundant?), shills for the military-industrial complex and corporate media talking heads should be pleased. The United Nations has given Obama, Great Britain, France and others a blank check to make war on Libya.

According to an online report by The Cable, neocon Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) left a Friday morning classified briefing saying the Obama administration was set to enforce a no-fly/no-drive zone over Libya.

“We ground his aircraft and some tanks start getting blown up that are headed toward the opposition forces,” Graham told reporters.

And then Tomahawk missiles started flying and bomb started dropping.

This is an act of war, whether it’s done under the auspices of the United Nations or not.

It was a war Obama seemed reluctant to engage in for a while. But now that he’s in he’s gone all in.

On Thursday night, 10 member nations of the U.N. Security Council voted to wage war on Libya if President Moammar Gadhafi continued to use his air force to bombard the rebels. The council’s actions caused Gadhafi to order a cease fire on Friday, but it seems attacks continued.

The resolution condemned Gadhafi’s “gross and systematic violation of human rights” which “may amount to crimes against humanity” and pose a “threat to international peace and security,” according to a report in the British newspaper, The Sun.

As an aside, Libya was laughably a member of the U.N. Human Rights Commission until March 1, when that august body suddenly realized Gadhafi was a tyrant. Now, that commission is investigating whether Gadhafi has committed war crimes.

So Obama (with the backing of warmongers Graham, former Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, Republican Senator John McCain, Democrat Senator John Kerry, Secretary of State  Hillary Clinton and many others), is waging war on a country that has not attacked us and poses us no threat. Great Britain, France and world powers Bosnia and Herzegovina, Columbia, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal and South Africa also voted for the no-fly zone. Russia, China, Germany, Italy and India abstained.

The rebel forces trying to overthrow Gadhafi made headway when the battle was conducted on the ground. When Gadhafi brought in the air power, the tide turned. The rebels began calling for help in the form of a no-fly zone once they started losing ground. Gadhafi’s loyalists were almost into a mopping up phase and the U.N.’s efforts to help the rebels overthrow Gadhafi may be too little, too late. Graham insisted it wasn’t too late.

Obama was slow to the table on sanctions. He dillied and he dallied—much to the chagrin of the warmonger crowd—while Clinton and her former President husband pleaded. France and Great Britain sounded very much like former President George W. Bush in their push for war. The Arab League joined in, but by Sunday the League was getting squeamish when members realized what they’d gotten.

What his motivations were for staying out of Libya at the beginning, only Obama and his handlers know. Perhaps Obama is, as Gadhafi has asserted, Gadhafi’s friend. It’s certainly not that Obama is anti-war, as he led many to believe when he was begging for votes.

Obama has failed in his promise to extricate the United States from its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and has even expanded it into Pakistan, Yemen and who knows where else.  Like his predecessors, Obama has approved military strikes on suspected terrorist hideouts in countries we have not declared war upon. Innocent men, women and children have died as a result.

We are now 20 years and seven months into our Middle Eastern excursion that began after U.S. diplomats sent conflicting signals to the late and former Central Intelligence Agency asset President Saddam Hussein of Iraq. The perpetual war drags on, much to the delight of the military-industrial complex and corporatocracy. (For more information on the CIA connection to Hussein—and others—see The Secret History of the American Empire and Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, both by John Perkins.)

A no-fly/no-drive zone is an act of war. You can’t control the skies without intruding into Libyan airspace. You can’t command the skies without first destroying radar installations and anti-aircraft batteries and shooting down Libyan aircraft. And you can’t blow up tanks without killing a lot of soldiers.

The U.N. resolution gave the international community the authority to be “outcome determinant” and “do whatever’s necessary” to enforce the U.N.’s mandates, The Cable reported. That’s diplomat-speak for shoot at will.

You may recall we saw in both Afghanistan and Iraq that the tyrants there had no qualms about parking their weapons in and around schools and communities of innocents. So the U.N. has sanctioned killing women and children in order to save the rebels.

In the past, France, Germany, et al have hidden behind the U.S.’s skirts, urging military action on the one hand, condemning it on the other and reaping the financial benefits—that is, their military-industrial complexes and elected elites reaped the financial benefits. Great Britain, to its credit—or detriment—wasn’t afraid to get its hands dirty by sending its own young men into the fray.

But the lead was always taken by the U.S. “If not us, who?” is the battle cry. “We are the lone superpower. We must police the world.” And even though Obama didn’t lead the push this time, The Cable is reporting that the U.S. will once again do the heavy lifting when the shooting starts.

Neocons—and surprisingly supposed anti-war doves like Kerry and his fellow liberals—love to push our troops into bad situations for altruistic motives.

So we wage war on Muslims on behalf of Muslims, on behalf of Germans, on behalf of the French, on behalf of the Brits, on behalf of Israel, and we wonder why young people are persuaded to wrap explosives around their midsections and blow themselves up in crowded places. We wonder why CIA-sponsored clerics like Anwar al-Awlaki—who dined at the Pentagon days after the 9/11 attacks but is now the head bad guy du jour—can convince mentally challenged patsies (see Major Nidal Malik Hasan and Faisal Shahzad) to shoot into crowds or place bombs in public squares.

That Gadhafi is an evil totalitarian who has been cruel to his people, there is no doubt. But how is he different from the evil totalitarian Hosni Mubarak, whom we propped up and enriched for 30 years? How is he different from the totalitarian kings and princes that rule over Saudi Arabia and Bahrain and are now gunning down protestors in the streets?

The difference is, as Perkins described in The Secret History of American Empire, whether they are part of the corporatocracy; whether they took the bait offered by the economic hit men or succumbed to the threats of the jackals. If so, well, they are dictators but they are our dictators. If not, then they must go.

It’s challenging to know whether the global elites are losing control of the situation or stirring it up. With Obama seeming initially to prefer to try and sit out the Libya, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain revolts, one has to think the latter.

Whatever the situation, America doesn’t need to be drawn into a third conflict in that region. We can no longer afford the wars we’re already fighting.

It’s time to bring the troops home and close down the bases that prop up the empire. The Founders did not envision the United States as an empire.

There is much talk—and little else—about cutting the deficit. One way to start is to slash military spending. It’s time to do it, and preserve only that spending necessary for national defense.

America’s Shameful Hand . . .

Monday, March 21st, 2011

Thanks to  VETERANS TODAY –  Military Veterans & Foreign Affairs Journal

America’s Hidden Hand Behind The UN Resolution

Yesterday, the UN Security Council, spurred on by the United States, passed resolution 1973 (2011) authorizing a no-fly zone — a euphemism for war — over Libya.

According to Associated Press:

“The resolution establishes “a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians.” It also authorizes UN member states to take “all necessary measures … to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory.”

“The vote was 10-0 with five countries abstaining including Russia and China, which have veto power in the council, along with India, Germany and Brazil. The United States, France and Britain pushed for speedy approval.”

Ostensibly, the resolution for a no-fly zone was requested by the Libyan rebel’s Transitional National Council and the Arab League (AL).

Veteran Indian diplomat M K Bhadrakumar writes:

“The plain truth is that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union (EU) commanded AL to speak since they need a fig leaf to approach the United Nations Security Council. . . .

“The Western powers had earlier mentioned the AL and African Union (AU) in the same breath as representing “regional opinion”. Now it seems the AU isn’t so important — it has become an embarrassment. African leaders are proving to be tough nuts to crack compared to Arab playboy-rulers.”

The Arab League resolution was rammed through by Amr Moussa, Secretary-General of the Arab League, who hopes to succeed Hosni Mubarak as Egypt’s next president. Arab leaders, who depend upon the U.S. for their continued existence, were not hard to persuade.

Syria and Algeria (Algeria shares a longer border with Libya than does Tunisia), having opposed the imposition of a no-fly zone, apparently consented.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Prime Minister of Turkey, Nato’s only Muslim member, said he opposed foreign intervention and called for an immediate ceasefire.

The Arab League vote gave the U.S. the cover it wanted. Bloomberg reported:

“U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that since the Arab League backed a no-fly zone over Libya there has been a “sea change” in international opinion toward favoring the action. . . .

“Russia and China, who have questioned a no-fly zone at the UN, are reconsidering after the Arab League statement on Saturday, Clinton said.”

The United Kingdom and France, eager to get in on the plunder of yet another mainly Muslim state have been eager participants.

Award-winning, internationally syndicated columnist Eric Margolis had “reported for weeks that Britain’s elite Special Air Service (SAS) has been rallying anti-Gadaffi forces in and around Benghazi, seizing desert oil installations, and helping attack pro-Gadaffi forces.”

Libya has the largest proven oil reserves in Africa according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, facing a tough election, and accused by Muammar Gaddafi’s son that Libya helped to finance his election campaign in 2007, took advantage of the opportunity created by the Libyan rebellion to divert attention from his own problems.

The behind-the-scene American role has been kept largely hidden from the public.

On March 16, 2011, I received a letter from Radwan A. Masmoudi, President, Center for the Study of Islam & Democracy (CSID), asking me to sign a letter urging President Obama:

“. . . that with the recent unanimous vote of the League of Arab States, numerous calls for such action from states within the region, as well as wider calls from traditional American allies such as France and Britain for such action, legitimate sanction for the speedy imposition of a no-fly zone now exists and we call upon you now to assume a leading role in halting the horrific violence being perpetrated by Colonel Gaddafi’s forces

“. . . to create a coalition that will impose as quickly as possible a no-fly zone for all Libyan military aircraft over the full extent of northern Libyan airspace.”

The letter was signed by hundreds of “scholars” first among whom were Larry Diamond, Director, Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law, Stanford University; John L. Esposito, Director, Al-Waleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, Georgetown University; Akbar Ahmed, Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies, American University; Francis Fukuyama, Institute for International Studies, Stanford University; Michele Dunne, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

I did not sign it, and informed Masmoudi that I oppose the no-fly zone.

With hundreds of signatures on the letter, why I was asked to sign is a mystery to me. The activities of CSID and its sponsors are less mysterious, but less well known to the public.

CSID, established in 1999, has as its mission to “educate the public concerning benefits of democracy in Islamic regions through conferences, publications and internet.”

In its tax returns, CSID lists as its principle program accomplishments: democracy training workshops in Morocco, Tunisia, Jordan; establishing the Network of Democrats, publishing a newsletter on the status of democracy in the Arab world; organizing conferences, etc.

CSID appears to be funded entirely by the U.S. government — when asked, Masmoudi did not deny it. One of its officers or employees, Radwan Ziadeh, lists his address at the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) in Washington, DC.

Zalmay Khalilzad, US Ambassador to Iraq, Afghanistan, and the United Nations — who bears major responsibility for the disaster in Afghanistan and Iraq, is on NED’s Board of Directors.

NED has spent millions of dollars promoting ‘color’ revolutions. “NED was established by the Reagan Administration in 1983, to do overtly, what the CIA had done covertly, in the words of one its legislative drafters, Allen Weinstein”, according to Jonathan Mowat at the Centre for Research on Globalisation.

So when U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that since the Arab League backed a no-fly zone over Libya there has been a “sea change” in international opinion, she was basking in the result of NED’s efforts to promote “democracy” in states that have resisted U.S. efforts to plunder them.

The creation of a new state encompassing the oil producing parts of Libya is a distinct possibility.

Libya, which has the highest standard of living in Africa, is about to encounter democracy American style — the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

Japan and US … in the same boat?

Thursday, March 17th, 2011

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, . . .”

By WJ Anthony

All Governments have responsibilities; most have many responsibilities; big Governments have more than others.

Responsibility should be pertinent to our recent and present plans after the powerful earthquakes and the tsunami hit Japan and brought the immense consequences of death and destruction.

At the tine of this writing, the news sources are reporting that six nuclear–powered energy plants have been swamped by the huge tsunami ocean wave that caused explosions to erupt in the containment chambers where nuclear rods previously heated water into steam that powered the electrical generators to produce electricity for much of Japan’s electrical grid.  As the heated water changed to steam, more water had to be supplied to the containment chambers to absorb the heat caused by the radiation from the rods.  The tsunami caused the pumps to fail to move the water out of the chamber as steam to generate electricity and provide the chamber with cool water, the unmoved water in the chamber became superheated with the demand to expand as steam and exploded through the roof of the chamber, damaging the rods of nuclear fuel, which then spread as a flood of radiation to the surrounding vicinities.

The expanding area of radiation from the explosions of the heat generating chambers of the power plants caused thousands of people to try to flee from being contaminated by severe radiation dangers.  They also tried to flee the collapsing infrastructure of the area, and many sought to flee from Japan itself, but have been unable to obtain passage to leave the areas.  News reports say that foreign airlines have refused to evacuate refugees from Japan, because exposed people may carry radiation dangers with them.

The explosions and the spreading contamination of nuclear radiation dismantled or destroyed much of Japan’s infrastructure and transportation on the northern islands.  Thousands of people perished or drowned in the tsunami and thousands of others were never found.   These are only some of the consequences of the record earthquake that caused the tsunami.

With that in mind, it is appropriate to ask some questions.

What is the responsibility of Government in such an event?

Who decided to build those reactors in locations that could be engulfed by a tsunami flood of ocean water?

Do private corporations own the reactors?

Who designed the reactors?

When were their designs created?

When were they built?

Were they designed and built by Japanese engineers?

Were they designed and built by American engineers, working for American corporations?

Why did the officials of Japanese Government allow the nuclear reactors to be built where they were located?

Who is responsible for the location of the nuclear reactors?

Who could be charged with the responsibility for choosing those reactors and those locations?

Why aren’t the news sources revealing the answers to these important questions?

Will the Japanese Government decide on who will be responsible for future decisions, regarding nuclear-powered reactors for electricity generation?

Will people of other countries decide on who will be responsible for future decisions, regarding nuclear-powered reactors for electricity generation?

How are we the people responsible for Government?

The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence suggests some basic understandings:
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.  Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accused.  But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.  Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.”

For any Government to secure the unalienable Rights of people, it must derive its just powers from the consent of the People.  The people must have and use their power to require officials of Government to be responsible for what they do, so that in Lincoln’s words at Gettysburg  “this nation under God, shall have a new birth of freedom … and that government of the people … by the people … for the people … shall not perish from the earth.”   And, nowadays we should remember the past in planning our future.

If we were to ask the best informed historian to explain how many governments have been “instituted among Men,” would that historian or any other expert be able to give us a number as an answer?

Think about what a Webster Standard Dictionary said, “Government is a form by which a community is arranged.”

If that is an acceptable definition, then we might ask,

How many Governments has humanity instituted on Earth, during the centuries of mankind’s millennial history?

How many ‘types’ of Governments have there been?

How many types of communities have been ‘instituted’ by mankind?

Communities have been built in many shapes.  Knowledgeable sociologists and political scientists might tell us that communities, as Governments, are important if people want to secure their rights.

Did the authors of the Declaration of Independence capitalize the word Government so those who might read it would give it a respect for what it must do?  The ‘must do’ isn’t always easy.

Do American or Japanese governments successfully accomplish that role?  All governments secure some services that secure some rights for their people; some are better at doing that than other governments.  Most American and Japanese people expect their Governments to successfully arrange their rights to use public roads, turn on the city water to their sinks and bathtubs, turn on the lights or hear their furnace automatically start to warm their home or building.

But all that changed on Japan’s northern island, when a tsunami of the earth obliterated all the coastal life of its society.

When a city or county in America plows the snow from the streets and roads in their neighborhood, the people feel satisfied, expecting that they would be able to go to their job or shop for food or have their children attend school that day.

Like the best-laid plans of mice and men, the pumps of New Orleans were unable to prevent the waters of the Mississippi from destroying New Orleans.

American and Japanese people are reminded at night that they have fire and police protection, when they hear the sirens of emergency crews rushing to the persons in need of their help.   But on the northern island of Japan, it wasn’t possible to find fire and police protection to throw back the 15 meter-high tsunami wave that drowned many people and swept many others away as debris, after the earthquake.

People from rural areas in America and Japan were aware of the reason that our city toilets flush; there are water and sewage treatment plants that make safe water and sewage a common experience every day at any hour.  They knew that it happens because elder people, at some time in the past and at present, have arranged to organize a community of some sort, a town, city, or village, a state and also a national government with the responsibility and facilities to secure for all the people certain services that individual persons could not provide by themselves as individuals, such as safe water and sewage.

The tsunami destroyed the facilities and services of Japanese people in the northern island and affected life even in Tokyo.  And the New Orleans flood destroyed the facilities and services of Americans in the flooded neighborhoods of New Orleans.

Do our American Governments have an appropriate method by which people can give their consent to a Government decision before the decision becomes a policy?  A few persons are officially vested with the responsibility to establish a rule or policy, by which a process will take place as a consequence of a decision that they make for Government.  Decision-makers may be elected by the people to decide how to do a task or they may be appointed by elected officials to make such decisions.  Whoever makes the decision will be considered responsible for the outcome of consequences.

Who in America was responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center or the flood that destroyed New Orleans?

Who decided to erect the nuclear-powered plants in those ocean-side locations of Japan?

The Declaration of Independence says, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

That suggests that it is necessary for people to be able to consent or reject the powers of Government.

Do most Japanese people have only a limited opportunity to consent or reject or participate in the powers of Government functions? Most Japanese and Americans perform daily work at some occupation, by which they earn the money to purchase the goods and services of a standard of living that they need.

Do Japanese and American workers have enough time and opportunity to operate their jobs and also know how to perform some role in government?  The answer is obviously no.   Workers elect officials to hire or appoint qualified people to operate their government responsibilities.

So, all things considered, who is responsible for the failure of Government to secure the Safety and Happiness of Americans and Japanese people during a natural disaster?  Who made the decisions?  Lives were lost.  Will we make the same mistakes in the future?  Is it up to the people to choose how we will change and if we will change?

How about you and me?

Leon Trotsky said something to the effect that Chaos causes change; and only as deep as the chaos is spread can change be expected to occur.   He favored worldwide chaos to change humanity from its conservative beliefs.  His goal was to have constant revolution to destroy the trust of the people in their beliefs.  He was mistaken.

The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence tells us where we get our rights, and as a consequence that we should expect Safety and Happiness as our obligation and future.

Do we WANT the Truth … ?

Wednesday, March 2nd, 2011

The Anti-Empire Report

March 1st, 2011
by William Blum

The Enduring Mystique of the Marshall Plan

Amidst all the stirring political upheavals in North Africa and the Middle East the name “Marshall Plan” keeps being repeated by political figures and media around the world as the key to rebuilding the economies of those societies to complement the political advances, which hopefully will be somewhat progressive. But caveat emptor. Let the buyer beware.

During my years of writing and speaking about the harm and injustice inflicted upon the world by unending United States interventions, I’ve often been met with resentment from those who accuse me of chronicling only the negative side of US foreign policy and ignoring the many positive sides. When I ask the person to give me some examples of what s/he thinks show the virtuous face of America’s dealings with the world in modern times, one of the things mentioned — almost without exception — is The Marshall Plan. This is usually described along the lines of: “After World War II, the United States unselfishly built up Europe economically, including our wartime enemies, and allowed them to compete with us.” Even those today who are very cynical about US foreign policy, who are quick to question the White House’s motives in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, have little problem in accepting this picture of an altruistic America of the period 1948-1952. But let’s have a look at the Marshall Plan outside the official and popular versions.

After World War II, the United States, triumphant abroad and undamaged at home, saw a door wide open for world supremacy. Only the thing called “communism” stood in the way, politically, militarily, and ideologically. The entire US foreign policy establishment was mobilized to confront this “enemy”, and the Marshall Plan was an integral part of this campaign. How could it be otherwise? Anti-communism had been the principal pillar of US foreign policy from the Russian Revolution up to World War II, pausing for the war until the closing months of the Pacific campaign, when Washington put challenging communism ahead of fighting the Japanese. This return to anti-communism included the dropping of the atom bomb on Japan as a warning to the Soviets. 1

After the war, anti-communism continued as the leitmotif of American foreign policy as naturally as if World War II and the alliance with the Soviet Union had not happened. Along with the CIA, the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, the Council on Foreign Relations, certain corporations, and a few other private institutions, the Marshall Plan was one more arrow in the quiver of those striving to remake Europe to suit Washington’s desires:

  1. Spreading the capitalist gospel — to counter strong postwar tendencies towards socialism.
  2. Opening markets to provide new customers for US corporations — a major reason for helping to rebuild the European economies; e.g., a billion dollars of tobacco at today’s prices, spurred by US tobacco interests.
  3. Pushing for the creation of the Common Market and NATO as integral parts of the West European bulwark against the alleged Soviet threat.
  4. Suppressing the left all over Western Europe, most notably sabotaging the Communist Parties in France and Italy in their bids for legal, non-violent, electoral victory. Marshall Plan funds were secretly siphoned off to finance this endeavor, and the promise of aid to a country, or the threat of its cutoff, was used as a bullying club; indeed, France and Italy would certainly have been exempted from receiving aid if they had not gone along with the plots to exclude the communists from any kind of influential role.

The CIA also skimmed large amounts of Marshall Plan funds to covertly maintain cultural institutions, journalists, and publishers, at home and abroad, for the heated and omnipresent propaganda of the Cold War; the selling of the Marshall Plan to the American public and elsewhere was entwined with fighting “the red menace”. Moreover, in its covert operations, CIA personnel at times used the Marshall Plan as cover, and one of the Plan’s chief architects, Richard Bissell, then moved to the CIA, stopping off briefly at the Ford Foundation, a long time conduit for CIA covert funds. One big happy family.

The Marshall Plan imposed all kinds of restrictions on the recipient countries, all manner of economic and fiscal criteria which had to be met, designed for a wide open return to free enterprise. The US had the right to control not only how Marshall Plan dollars were spent, but also to approve the expenditure of an equivalent amount of the local currency, giving Washington substantial power over the internal plans and programs of the European states; welfare programs for the needy survivors of the war were looked upon with disfavor by the United States; even rationing smelled too much like socialism and had to go or be scaled down; nationalization of industry was even more vehemently opposed by Washington. The great bulk of Marshall Plan funds returned to the United States, or never left, to purchase American goods, making American corporations among the chief beneficiaries.

The program could be seen as more a joint business operation between governments than an American “handout”; often it was a business arrangement between American and European ruling classes, many of the latter fresh from their service to the Third Reich, some of the former as well; or it was an arrangement between Congressmen and their favorite corporations to export certain commodities, including a lot of military goods. Thus did the Marshall Plan help lay the foundation for the military industrial complex as a permanent feature of American life.

It is very difficult to find, or put together, a clear, credible description of how the Marshall Plan played a pivotal or indispensable role in the recovery in each of the 16 recipient nations. The opposing view, at least as clear, is that the Europeans — highly educated, skilled and experienced — could have recovered from the war on their own without an extensive master plan and aid program from abroad, and indeed had already made significant strides in this direction before the Plan’s funds began flowing. Marshall Plan funds were not directed primarily toward the urgently needed feeding of individuals or rebuilding their homes, schools, or factories, but at strengthening the economic superstructure, particularly the iron, steel and power industries. The period was in fact marked by deflationary policies, unemployment and recession. The one unambiguous outcome was the full restoration of the propertied class. 2

The rising up of the people … and the conservative mind

James Baker served as the Chief of Staff in President Ronald Reagan’s first administration and in the final year of the administration of President George H.W. Bush. He was also Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan and Secretary of State under Bush. Thus, by establishment standards and values, inside marble-columned institutions, Baker is a man to be taken seriously when it comes to affairs of state. Here he is on February 3, during an interview by our favorite TV station, our very own shining beacon of truth, Fox News:

“We want to see the people in the Middle East have a chance at democracy and free markets … I’m sorry, democracy and human rights.” 3

Baker has a record of speaking his mind, whether Freudian-slip-like or not. When he was Secretary of State, on an occasion when the Middle East was being discussed at a government meeting, and Jewish-American influence was mentioned, Baker was reported to have said “Fuck the Jews! They don’t vote for us anyway.” 4

They couldn’t resist, could they?

News flash: “Judge Mustafa Abdel Jallil, the Libyan justice minister who resigned last week in protest over the use of force against unarmed civilians, said he has proof that Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi ordered the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on Dec. 21, 1988. He would not disclose details of the alleged evidence.” 5

Hmmm, let me guess now why he wouldn’t disclose details of the alleged evidence … hmmm … Ah, I know — because it doesn’t exist! How could Gadhafi’s many enemies in Libya resist kicking him like this when he’s down? Or perhaps the honorable judge is simply protecting himself from a future international criminal tribunal for his years of service to the Libyan state? If you read any more of such nonsense — and you will — reach for some of the antidote I’ve been providing for more than 20 years. 6

The empire’s deep dark secret

“In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should have his head examined,” declared US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on February 25.

Remarkable. Every one of the many wars the United States has engaged in since the end of World War II has been presented to the American people, explicitly or implicitly, as a war of necessity, not a war of choice; a war urgently needed to protect American citizens, American allies, vital American “interests”, freedom, or democracy. Here is President Obama speaking of Afghanistan: “But we must never forget this is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity.” 7

This being the case, how can a future administration say it will not go to war if any of these noble causes is seriously threatened? The answer is that these noble causes are irrelevant. The United States goes to war where and when it wants, and if a noble cause is not self-evident, the government, with indispensable help from the American media, will manufacture it. Secretary Gates is now admitting that there is choice involved. Well, Bob, thanks for telling us. You were Bush’s Secretary of Defense as well, and before that 26 years in the CIA and the National Security Council. You sure know how to keep a secret.

Items of interest from a journal I’ve kept for 40 years, part II

  • In its more than 50 years of revolution Cuba has never reciprocated the US aggression against it; no military or terrorist assaults have emanated from Havana in spite of the many hundreds of CIA aerial bombings, ground attacks, acts of sabotage, and assassination attempts. Oh, did I mention all the chemical and biological warfare? Oddly, the State Department’s list of “State sponsors of terrorism” includes Cuba, but not the United States. The little nation of Cuba has defied all rational odds against its socialist survival.
  • The wit and wisdom of Mr. Barack Obama: “To ensure prosperity here at home and peace abroad, we all share the belief we have to maintain the strongest military on the planet.” (December 1, 2008, Agence France Presse) How true. All Americans share that belief, as they rejoice in the strongest military on the planet and a veritable overflowing of prosperity at home and peace abroad.
  • Steven Bradbury, Department of Justice lawyer under George W. Bush, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was discussing the legal status of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay: “The president is always right.” (Washington Post, July 12, 2006)
  • “There are 3 billion people in the world and we have only 200 million of them. We are outnumbered 15 to 1. If might did make right they would sweep over the United States and take what we have. We have what they want.” – President Lyndon Johnson, 1966
  • As the George W. Bush administration was entering office in 2000, Donald Rumsfeld exuberantly expressed grandiose ambitions for Middle East domination, telling the National Security Council: “Imagine what the region would look like without Saddam and with a regime that’s aligned with US interests. It would change everything in the region and beyond.” A few weeks later, Bush speechwriter David Frum declared to the New York Times Magazine: “An American-led overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and the replacement of the radical Baathist dictatorship with a new government more closely aligned with the United States, would put America more wholly in charge of the region than any power since the Ottomans, or maybe even the Romans.”
  • Shortly after Salvador Allende became president of Chile in 1970, Nixon’s National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger, recorded a conversation in which Secretary of State William Rogers agreed that “we ought, as you say, to cold-bloodedly decide what to do and then do it,” but warned it should be done “discreetly so that it doesn’t backfire.” Rogers predicted that “after all we have said about elections, if the first time a Communist wins the U.S. tries to prevent the constitutional process from coming into play we will look very bad.”
  • “The revulsion against war … will be an almost insuperable obstacle for us to overcome. For that reason, I am convinced that we must begin now to set the machinery in motion for a permanent wartime economy.” Charles E. Wilson, 1944. During World War II he held leading positions overseeing the huge US military production effort; after the war he resumed his position as CEO of General Electric, one of the leading defense corporations.
  • Remember Ben Tre? That was the Vietnamese village the Americans destroyed in 1968, saying “It became necessary to destroy the town in order to save it.” Since then the Americans have been saving towns all over the globe, in Cambodia, Laos, Panama, Nicaragua, Sudan, Iraq, Yugoslavia and more. Then on Sept 11, 2001, someone, no doubt overcome with gratitude, decided to save some Americans. – Bev Currie, Canada
  • United Nations Resolution 1244, adopted in 1999, reaffirmed the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to which Serbia was the recognized successor state, and established that Kosovo was to remain part of Serbia. Today, Kosovo is independent, because the United States wants it that way, because Serbia is still being punished for its refusal in the 1990s to act like a proper European state displaying subservience to the United States, the European Union, NATO, and capitalism. Independent Kosovo is perhaps the most genuinely gangster-state in the world. It’s led by Prime Minister Hashim Thaci, whom a Council of Europe investigation recently accused of being the boss of a criminal operation to kidnap people and steal their kidneys.(sic) (Associated Press, December 14 and 15, 2010) He and Washington, naturally, are on the best of terms.
  • “Look,” said Russian president Vladimir Putin about NATO in 2001, “this is a military organization. It’s moving towards our border. Why?” He subsequently described NATO as “the stinking corpse of the cold war.” (Associated Press, June 16, 2001; Press Trust of India, December 21, 2007)
  • Senator John McCain, re: fighting in Georgia, 2008: “I’m interested in good relations between the United States and Russia. But in the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations.” (Washington Post, August 14, 2008) One really has to wonder at times about the sanity of neo-conservatives, or at least their IQ.
  • Re: “collateral damage” produced by US bombing in many countries: Killing innocent bystanders when targeting someone else has long been considered murder in Western law.
  • “It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.” – Voltaire
  • “The central aim of the war in Afghanistan — planned well before the attacks of September 11, 2001 — was to take advantage of the power vacuum in Central Asia created by the Soviet Union’s dissolution to assert US domination over a region containing the second largest proven reserves of petroleum and natural gas in the world.” – Bill Van Auken, World Socialist Web Site
  • “To me, I confess, [countries] are pieces on a chessboard upon which is being played out a game for dominion of the world.” Lord Curzon, British viceroy of India, speaking about Afghanistan, 1898
  • Ricardo Alarcon, President of the Cuban National Assembly, stated in 2008: Cuba allows CNN, AP and Chicago Tribune to maintain offices in Cuba, but the US refuses to allow Cuban journalists to work in the United States.
  • Washington’s “Plan Colombia”, launched in 2000, was the militarization of the war on drugs.
  • Michael Moore, March 24, 2008: “I see that Frontline on PBS this week has a documentary called ‘Bush’s War’. That’s what I’ve been calling it for a long time. It’s not the ‘Iraq War’. Iraq did nothing. Iraq didn’t plan 9/11. It didn’t have weapons of mass destruction. It DID have movie theaters and bars and women wearing what they wanted and a significant Christian population and one of the few Arab capitals with an open synagogue. But that’s all gone now. Show a movie and you’ll be shot in the head. Over a hundred women have been randomly executed for not wearing a scarf.”
  • Michael Collon: “Let’s replace the word ‘democratic’ by ‘with us’ and the word ‘terrorist’ by ‘against us’.”
  • The American Century went the way of the Thousand Year Reich.
  • Reagan invaded Grenada in October 1983 because he cut and ran from Beirut after the United States lost 241 Marines in the infamous truck bombing. The United States invaded Grenada two days later.
  • Noam Chomsky: “The whole debate about the Iranian ‘interference’ in Iraq makes sense only on one assumption; namely, that ‘we own the world’. If we own the world, then the only question that can arise is that someone else is interfering in a country we have invaded and occupied. So if you look over the debate that took place and is still taking place about Iranian interference, no one points out this is insane. How can Iran be interfering in a country that we invaded and occupied? It’s only appropriate on the presupposition that we own the world. Once you have that established in your head, the discussion is perfectly sensible.”
  • In late 1997, according to Dana Priest’s book, The Mission, the Bill Clinton White House wanted CENTCOM commander Gen. Anthony Zinni to order his pilots to provoke a military confrontation with Iraq in the no-fly zone by deliberately drawing fire from Iraqi planes.
  • Reagan accepted a fateful trade-off when he agreed not to complain about Pakistan’s efforts to acquire a nuclear weapons capability in exchange for Pakistani cooperation in helping the Afghan rebels.
  • “The presumption of ‘government incompetence’ is seldom a useful assumption in evaluating the behavior of governments. We only reach such a conclusion if we take their official rhetoric at face value. In terms of ‘achieving democracy’, the official rhetoric, Bush has been ‘incompetent’ in Iraq. But in terms of the real agenda — building permanent bases and controlling the oil — he has in fact been successful. I have found that this is always the pattern: some real agenda is always being achieved by the policies in force, despite the apparent bungling in terms of the official agenda.” – Richard K. Moore
  • The 9/11 attacks reflected the anger and rage that US foreign policy had produced in the past and then provided the excuse for US officials to continue such policy in the future.

Upcoming talks by William Blum

Saturday, April 2, 7:00 pm
University of Pittsburgh at Titusville, PA

504 East Main Street
Henne Auditorium
Titusville is about 2 hours by car from Pittsburgh and 2 1/2 hours from Cleveland.
For further information call 888-878-0462
Or email Mary Ann Caton:

Thursday, May 19
Paris, France

Conference: “Ethics and US Foreign Policy in the 21st Century”
Université de Paris Ouest-Nanterre-La Défense, Amphi B-2
All day, beginning at 9 am
Email me for full schedule


  1. See William Blum’s essay on the use of the atomic bomb
  2. For discussion of various aspects of the Marshall Plan see, for example, Joyce & Gabriel Kolko, The Limits of Power: The World and US Foreign Policy 1945-1954 (1972), chapters 13, 16, 17; Sallie Pisani, The CIA and the Marshall Plan (1991) passim; Frances Stoner Saunders, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the world of arts and letters (2000) passim
  3. Crisis in Egypt – James A. Baker III on Middle East Political Change
  4. The Guardian (London), December 12, 2000; Haaretz (Israel), November 14, 2008
  5. McClatchy Newspapers, February 26, 2011
  6. The Bombing of PanAm Flight 103: Case Not Closed
  7. Veterans of Foreign Wars convention, August 17, 2009

William Blum is the author of:

  • Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2
  • Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower
  • West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir
  • Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire

Portions of the books can be read, and signed copies purchased, at

Previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read at this website.