‘Having experienced several more weeks of mainstream media jingoism about the “Iranian threat,” culminating in the outrageous Joshua Muravchik op-ed advocating war with Iran as the “best option” for dealing with that country, one has to ask why it is that a gaggle of self-proclaimed “experts” has been able to capture the foreign-policy narrative so completely, in spite of the fact that they have been wrong about nearly everything?
Neoconservatives have two core beliefs. First is their insistence that the United States has the right or even the responsibility to use its military and economic power to reshape the world in terms of its own interests and values. Constant war thus becomes the new normal. As Professor Eliot Cohen, a former State Department adviser under George W. Bush, put it, “For the great mass of the American public … and for their leaders and elites who shape public opinion ‘war weariness’ is unearned cant, unworthy of a serious nation… .”’
- A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
- Project for the New American Century
- Foreign Policy Initiative
- American Enterprise Institute
- Washington Institute for Near East Policy
- Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
- Committee for the Liberation of Iraq
- US thinktanks give lessons in foreign policy
‘It’s hardly controversial to suggest that the mainstream media’s performance in the lead-up to the Iraq War was a disaster. In retrospect, many journalists and pundits wish they had been more skeptical of the White House’s claims about Iraq, particularly its allegations about weapons of mass destruction. At the same time, though, media apologists suggest that the press could not have done much better, since “everyone” was in agreement on the intelligence regarding Iraq’s weapons threat. This was never the case. Critical journalists and analysts raised serious questions at the time about what the White House was saying. Often, however, their warnings were ignored by the bulk of the corporate press.
This timeline is an attempt to recall some of the worst moments in journalism, from the fall of 2002 and into the early weeks of the Iraq War. It is not an exhaustive catalog, but a useful reference point for understanding the media’s performance. The timeline also points to missed opportunities, when courageous journalists—working inside the mainstream and the alternative media—uncovered stories that should have made the front pages of daily newspapers, or provided fodder for TV talk shows. By reading mainstream media critically and tuning into the alternative press, citizens can see that the notion that “everyone” was wrong about Iraq was—and is—just another deception.’
‘Thirteen years ago, the intelligence community concluded in a 93-page classified document used to justify the invasion of Iraq that it lacked “specific information” on “many key aspects” of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs.
But that’s not what top Bush administration officials said during their campaign to sell the war to the American public. Those officials, citing the same classified document, asserted with no uncertainty that Iraq was actively pursuing nuclear weapons, concealing a vast chemical and biological weapons arsenal, and posing an immediate and grave threat to US national security.
Congress eventually concluded that the Bush administration had “overstated” its dire warnings about the Iraqi threat, and that the administration’s claims about Iraq’s WMD program were “not supported by the underlying intelligence reporting.” But that underlying intelligence reporting — contained in the so-called National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that was used to justify the invasion — has remained shrouded in mystery until now.’
- CIA Whites Out Controversial Estimate on Iraq Weapons
- Senate Select Committee on Postwar Findings About Iraq’s WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How They Compare with Prewar Assessments
- Senate Committee Report on the US Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq
- Blinders, Blunders and Wars: What America and China Can Learn
- The Black Vault
‘[…] The pattern has become a familiar one. For months, Breedlove has been commenting on Russian activities in eastern Ukraine, speaking of troop advances on the border, the amassing of munitions and alleged columns of Russian tanks. Over and over again, Breedlove’s numbers have been significantly higher than those in the possession of America’s NATO allies in Europe. As such, he is playing directly into the hands of the hardliners in the US Congress and in NATO.
The German government is alarmed. Are the Americans trying to thwart European efforts at mediation led by Chancellor Angela Merkel? Sources in the Chancellery have referred to Breedlove’s comments as “dangerous propaganda.” Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier even found it necessary recently to bring up Breedlove’s comments with NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg.
But Breedlove hasn’t been the only source of friction. Europeans have also begun to see others as hindrances in their search for a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine conflict. First and foremost among them is Victoria Nuland, head of European affairs at the US State Department. She and others would like to see Washington deliver arms to Ukraine and are supported by Congressional Republicans as well as many powerful Democrats.’
- Breedlove’s Statement to Der Spiegel
- Germany downplays report of rift with NATO over Breedlove comments
- The War Next Door: Can Merkel’s Diplomacy Save Europe?
- NATO Commander: US Lethal Aid to Ukraine Won’t Stop Russia
- Top NATO General, European DMs Oppose US Plans to Arm Ukraine
- General Breedlove calls for a retooling of NATO’s Response Force
- Bilderberg on Ukraine: Military chiefs, arms bosses and billionaire speculators
‘Last week a debate erupted over how “Islamic” the so-called “Islamic State” group (ISIS or ISIL) in Syria and Iraq is, and whether it is legitimate to speak of “Islamic” terrorism. It was provoked in part by a Graeme Wood article in The Atlantic and President Obama’s speech to a conference on Combating Violent Extremism. Obama was slammed by former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani as allegedly not loving America, in part because he declined to speak of “Islamic” terrorism. On Sunday, former defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz, interviewed on CNN’s State of the Union show, called Obama’s refusal to use the phrase “Islamic terrorism” “silly,” saying, “I think people understand that Islam has something to do with what we’re fighting, and when you deny it, you lose a lot of support.” This debate is actually about what philosophers call “essentialism,” and, as Giuliani’s and Wolfowitz’s own interventions make clear, it is about absolving the United States for its own role in producing the violent so-called “Caliphate” of Ibrahim al-Baghdadi.’
- Jeb Bush’s foreign policy team is eerily familiar
- Jeb Bush brings in foreign policy team with several faces from brother’s
- Jeb Bush: ‘I love my father and my brother…but I am my own man’
- Jeb Bush says Islamic State strategy should be to take them out
- The Romney national security transition team that might have been
‘As a federal inquiry begins in the killing of three Muslim students in North Carolina and an Islamic center in Houston, Texas, was intentionally set on fire Friday, we look at a new report that exposes the people who fund and stoke anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States. The investigation by the Center for American Progress is called “Fear, Inc. 2.0, The Islamophobia Network’s Efforts to Manufacture Hate in America,” an update of a 2011 report. We are joined by the report’s co-author, Yasmine Taeb, Islamophobia project manager at the Center for American Progress.’ (Democracy Now!)
- Fear, Inc. 2.0: The Islamophobia Network’s Efforts to Manufacture Hate in America
- Islamophobic network fuelling hate sentiments in US: Report
- Connecting The Dots: The North Carolina Murders And Anti-Muslim Hysteria
- Using Islamophobia To Win Elections Doesn’t Work
- NYPD Shutters Muslim Mapping Unit – But What About Other Tactics?
- Factsheet: The NYPD Muslim Surveillance Program
‘[…] Several reports have mentioned Carter’s work as a consultant to the defense industry between stints as a full-time official at the Department of Defense (DoD). But the Project On Government Oversight has found that Carter’s role, like that of many other members of Washington’s defense policy establishment, went deeper. While working in the private sector, he has held plum positions on government advisory boards that called for reforms with potential ramifications for his defense industry clients and other companies that receive DoD dollars.
Carter is hardly alone. Federal ethics laws allow scores of advisers at the Pentagon and other agencies to serve in these influential positions while keeping close ties to big businesses overseen by the government. Carter’s nomination [which has since been confirmed] serves to illustrate how the government allows members of the policy establishment to straddle both sides, and how it’s become a fixture of the military-industrial-congressional complex.’
- Defense secretary nominee pushes for more military action in Pentagon confirmation hearing
- Defense Secretary Nominee Supports Arming Ukraine
- Defense nominee Carter would reconsider Afghan withdrawal plan
- Ashton Carter: “the next coming of Paul Wolfowitz”
- Republicans See a New Ally at the Pentagon
- Likely Pentagon Chief Who Wanted to Bomb North Korea
- Meet the Guy Who Could Soon Be Running America’s Wars
‘It was launched immediately after the 9/11 attacks, when I was still in the military, and almost immediately became known as the Global War on Terror, or GWOT. Pentagon insiders called it “the long war,” an open-ended, perhaps unending, conflict against nations and terror networks mainly of a radical Islamist bent. It saw the revival of counterinsurgency doctrine, buried in the aftermath of defeat in Vietnam, and a reinterpretation of that disaster as well. Over the years, its chief characteristic became ever clearer: a “Groundhog Day” kind of repetition. Just when you thought it was over (Iraq, Afghanistan), just after victory (of a sort) was declared, it began again.
Now, as we find ourselves enmeshed in Iraq War 3.0, what better way to memorialize the post-9/11 American way of war than through repetition. Back in July 2010, I wrote an article for TomDispatch on the seven reasons why America can’t stop making war. More than four years later, with the war on terror still ongoing, with the mission eternally unaccomplished, here’s a fresh take on the top seven reasons why never-ending war is the new normal in America. In this sequel, I make only one promise: no declarations of victory (and mark it on your calendars, I’m planning to be back with seven new reasons in 2019).’
‘What if Vladimir Putin really was tough? What if he would prefer to fight to the death rather than see his country humiliated by the West or his regime collapse into chaos—outcomes he likely regards as equivalent. Is this not possible? There is no shortage of American politicians ready to attribute the most vile traits to Putin: Hillary Clinton, far from America’s most extreme rhetorician, likened him to Hitler. It’s not, of course, a remotely legitimate comparison. But if Putin were one-tenth as reckless as he is commonly depicted, what conclusions ought we to draw?
Leading papers of the Anglosphere are now promoting American plans to escalate the fight against Russia and its Ukraine intervention. Former government officials, polishing up their tough-minded credentials in preparation for their next administration job, recommend we begin major weapons shipments to Ukraine. Are trainers and advisers on how to use them included as well? Strobe Talbott in theWashington Post, Ivo Dalder in the Financial Times, the Washington Post editorial board, other major figures from Clinton-land and the permanent government are all on board for a major roll-out. Their idea is to make Russia pay a higher price in casualties if it continues to intervene on behalf of anti-Kiev rebels in the eastern parts of Ukraine.’
- Top NATO general warns of Russian reaction to arming Ukraine
- European defence ministers oppose sending weapons to Ukraine
- Obama to decide ‘soon’ on U.S. weapons for Ukraine, says Kerry
- Zbigniew Brzezinski: Arm Ukraine, But Keep It Out of NATO
- US threats to arm Ukraine a ‘bluff’, say EU diplomats
- Russia’s EU Ambassador: Sending arms to Ukraine is ‘the worst possible idea’
- U.S. Senators Push To Arm Ukrainians
- Poroshenko calls on NATO to send arms
- Ukraine crisis: Pentagon ‘chief’ inclined to send weapons
- Merkel: Germany Won’t Give Weapons to Ukraine, Favors Talks
- March to Folly in Ukraine
- ‘Group-Thinking’ the World into a New Cold War
- Strobe Talbott and Steven Pifer: Ukraine needs America’s help
- Bloomberg Editorial: Why Arming Ukraine Will Backfire
- War in Eastern Ukraine Has Only Just Begun
‘If you wonder how the lethal “group think” on Iraq took shape in 2002, you might want to study what’s happening today with Ukraine. A misguided consensus has grabbed hold of Official Washington and has pulled in everyone who “matters” and tossed out almost anyone who disagrees.
Part of the problem, in both cases, has been that neocon propagandists understand that in the modern American media the personal is the political, that is, you don’t deal with the larger context of a dispute, you make it about some easily demonized figure. So, instead of understanding the complexities of Iraq, you focus on the unsavory Saddam Hussein.
This approach has been part of the neocon playbook at least since the 1980s when many of today’s leading neocons – such as Elliott Abrams and Robert Kagan – were entering government and cut their teeth as propagandists for the Reagan administration. Back then, the game was to put, say, Nicaragua’s President Daniel Ortega into the demon suit, with accusations about him wearing “designer glasses.” Later, it was Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega and then, of course, Saddam Hussein.’
- March to Folly in Ukraine
- US Mulls Sending Ukraine Anti-Tank Missiles, Other Weapons
- The Media’s Dangerous Anti-Russian Jingoistic Game: Interview with Stephen Cohen
- Kissinger, Gorbachev separately warn about Ukraine crisis blowing out of control
- The truth about Ukraine finally emerges
- When Henry Kissinger Makes Sense
- Stephen Cohen: The New Cold War and the Necessity of Patriotic Heresy
‘[…] According to a new report, there was an ulterior motive for setting up Guantanamo: It was the ideal long-term interrogation facility, a “battle lab” where detainees would be subjected to untested interrogation methods and “exploited” for their intelligence value in what turned out to be a massive “experiment.”
The claims in the 66-page report, “Guantanamo: America’s Battle Lab,” prepared by Seton Hall Law School Center for Policy & Research and shared with VICE News, aren’t new. In 2009, the Senate Armed Services Committee released the findings of its investigation about the treatment of detainees in custody of the US military and reached similar conclusions.
But the Seton Hall study, co-authored by the university’s adjunct professor and senior research fellow Joseph Hickman, a former Guantanamo guard who challenged the military’s narrative surrounding the June 2006 deaths of three detainees – the government called them suicides, Hickman came to believe they were murders – makes a much stronger case. The report relies exclusively on internal government and military documents and statements public officials have made since Guantanamo opened 13 years ago to show how the detention facility “was covertly transformed into a secret interrogation base designed to foster intelligence’s curiosity on the effects of torture and the limits of the human spirit.”‘
- Guantanamo: America’s Battle Lab
- New Gitmo Commander: ‘Majority of Detainees Have… a Relative Degree of Freedom’
- What Excuse Remains for Obama’s Failure to Close GITMO?
- How Gitmo’s Existence Helps Al-Qaeda Recruit More Terrorists
- Obama’s non-closing of GITMO, kind NYT headlines, and US government irony
- The Obama GITMO myth
- Five years on, no end to the horror that is Guantanamo
- The Gitmo Fallout
- Rumsfeld News Conference December 2001
- John Yoo’s Torture Memo
‘First, a hat tip to Elias Groll, assistant editor at Foreign Policy, whose report just a few hours after the killings on Wednesday at the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, included this key piece of background on the younger of the two brother suspects:
“Carif Kouachi was previously known to the authorities, as he was convicted by a French court in 2008 of trying to travel to Iraq to fight in that country’s insurgent movement. Kouachi told the court that he wished to fight the American occupation after viewing images of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib prison.”
The next morning, Amy Goodman of Democracynow.org and Juan Cole (in his blog) also carried this highly instructive aspect of the story of the unconscionable terrorist attack, noting that the brothers were well known to French intelligence; that the younger brother, Cherif, had been sentenced to three years in prison for his role in a network involved in sending volunteer fighters to Iraq to fight alongside al-Qaeda; and that he said he had been motivated by seeing the images of atrocities by U.S. troops at Abu Ghraib.’
‘For some time now, I have been analyzing American history in the light of what I have called structural deep events: events, like the JFK assassination, the Watergate break-in, Iran-Contra, or 9/11, which repeatedly involve law-breaking or violence, are mysterious to begin with, are embedded in ongoing covert processes, have political consequences that enlarge covert government, and are subsequently covered up by systematic falsifications in the mainstream media and internal government records.
The more I study these deep events, the more I see suggestive similarities between them, increasing the possibility that they are not unrelated external intrusions on American history, but parts of an endemic process, sharing to some degree or other a common source.
For example, one factor linking Dallas, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and 9/11, has been the involvement in all four deep events of personnel involved in America’s highest-level emergency planning, known since the 1950s as Continuity of Government (COG) planning, or more colloquially inside the Pentagon as “the Doomsday Project.” A few of these actors may have been located at the top, as overseers of the secret COG system. Others – including some I shall talk about today – were located further down in its secret communications network.
I see this planning group as one among many in what I have chosen to call the American deep state, along with agencies like the CIA and NSA, the private groups like Booz Allen Hamilton to which more than half of the US intelligence budget is outsourced, and finally the powerful banks and corporations whose views are well represented in the CIA and NSA. But if only one group among many, the COG planning group is also special, because of its control of and access to a communications channel, not under government control, that can reach deeply into the US social structure.’
‘The year 2015 will surely mark a watershed in relations between the United States and Russia, one way or the other. However, whether tensions increase – to war-by-proxy in Ukraine or an even wider war – or whether they subside depends mostly on President Barack Obama.
Key to answering this question is a second one: Is Obama smart enough and strong enough to rein in Secretary of State John Kerry, the neocons and “liberal interventionists” running the State Department and to stand up to the chicken hawks in Congress, most of whom feel free to flirt with war because they know nothing of it.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, by contrast, experienced the effects of war at an early age. He was born in Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) eight years after the vicious siege by the German army ended. Michael Walzer, in his War Against Civilians, notes, “More people died in the 900-day siege of Leningrad than in the infernos of Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki taken together.”’
Editor’s Note: The below interview was conducted by Democracy Now in February 2008. Philip Zelikow served as executive director of the 9/11 Commission, Robert Windrem is an investigative journalism who co-authored an analysis on the 9/11 Commission Report, and Michael Ratner is the president of the Center for Constitutional Rights. You can view the full uninterrupted interview here.
- 9/11 Commission Deceived: An Unintentional Work of Fiction Based on Cheney’s Torture Program
- One of the Main Sources for the 9/11 Commission Report was Tortured Until He Agreed to Sign a Confession that He Was Not Even Allowed to Read
- Self-Confessed 9/11 “Mastermind” Also Falsely Confessed to Crimes He Didn’t Commit
- Witness Who Fingered 9/11 “Mastermind” Was Himself Crazy
- 9/11 Commission controversy
- Criticism of the 9/11 Commission
- Torture, Iraq and 9/11
- 9/11 Press for Truth (Documentary)
‘Hidden in the Senate torture report are stories of some heroes—people inside the CIA who from the beginning said torture was wrong, who tried to stop it, who refused to participate. There were also some outside the CIA, in the military and the FBI, who risked careers and reputations by resisting—and who sometimes paid a heavy price. They should be thanked and honored.
But President Obama hasn’t mentioned them. Instead, he praised the CIA officials who presided over the torture regime as “patriots.”
We should “celebrate the ones who stood up for what was right,” says David Luban of the Georgetown University law school, author of Torture, Power and Law. Jane Mayer of The New Yorker, author of the definitive book on Bush administration torture, The Dark Side, calls them “the real torture patriots.”
The opposition to torture within the CIA was so strong, Mayer reports, that the CIA Inspector General, John Helgerson, “conducted a serious and influential internal investigation.” That led the Justice Department to “ask the CIA to suspend the torture program”—at least “until it could be reconciled with the law.”’
- Acts of Courage Against Torture
- The Real Torture Patriots
- Celebrate the Ones Who Stood Up for What Was Right
- America’s real patriots fought to expose and end torture
- Remembering Abu Ghraib: Not Company Men and Women
- The C.I.A., Censorship, and National Security
- The memo Bush tried to destroy
- The Memo
- The Agent
- Taxi to the Dark Side (2007 Documentary)
- A Matter of Honor: Letter to Senator McCain
‘Why is the corporate media turning torture into a debate? Abby Martin discusses the media’s reaction to the Senate torture report and why torture has suddenly turned into a partisan debate.’ (Breaking the Set)
- The suppressed fact: Deaths by U.S. torture
- United Nations Convention against Torture
- Guantanamo inmate accuses US military of rape
- Abu Ghraib abuse photos ‘show rape’
- Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse
- Abu Ghraib: The images that shamed America
- Remember the Abu Ghraib Torture Pictures? There are More That Obama Doesn’t Want You to See
‘Just six days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, President Bush signed a secret order that gave the Central Intelligence Agency the power to capture and imprison terrorists with Al Qaeda. But the order said nothing about where they should be held or how the agency should go about the business of questioning them.
For the next few weeks, as the rubble at ground zero smoldered and the United States launched a military operation in Afghanistan, C.I.A. officials scrambled to fill in the blanks left by the president’s order. Initially, agency officials considered a path very different from the one they ultimately followed, according to the newly released Senate Intelligence Committee report on the C.I.A.’s harsh interrogation program.
They envisioned a system in which detainees would be offered the same rights and protections as inmates held in federal or American military prisons. Conditions at these new overseas prisons would be comparable to those at maximum-security facilities in the United States. Interrogations were to be conducted in accordance with the United States Army Field Manual, which prohibits coerced, painful questioning. Everything at the prisons would “be tailored to meet the requirements of U.S. law and the federal rules of criminal procedure,” C.I.A. lawyers wrote in November 2001.
The C.I.A.’s early framework for its detention program offers a glimpse of a possible alternative history. As the country grapples with new disclosures about the program, the Senate report tells a story of how plans for American-style jails were replaced with so-called “black sites,” where some prisoners were chained to walls and forgotten, froze to death on concrete floors and were waterboarded until they lost consciousness.’
‘The CIA tortured al-Qaeda suspects because it wanted evidence that Saddam Hussein was linked to 9/11 in order to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The agency was under intense pressure from the White House and senior figures in the Bush administration to extract confessions confirming co-operation between the Iraqi leader and al-Qaeda, although no significant evidence was ever found.
The CIA has defended its actions by claiming that it was “unknowable” if torture had produced results, although the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein, maintains torture produced nothing of value.
A second line of defence put forward by defenders of the CIA is to say that the agency was swept up in the reaction to 9/11 in the US and needed to find out quickly if there were going to be further attacks.’
‘It’s already glaringly obvious that the Senate isn’t going to follow up the CIA torture report with any actual reform, or even a token attempt to hold any of the torturers accountable. Still, CIA officials are outraged.
Nobody likes to be called a torturer, even if they tortured people and even if they’re going to get away with it. CIA Director John Brennan and others were furious about the release of the heavily redacted summary of the report.’
- CIA director rebuts report, says interrogation techniques ‘saved lives’
- Spies fire back at ‘biased, inaccurate, and destructive’ report
- Dismissing Senate Report, Cheney Defends C.I.A. Interrogations
- Ex-CIA Officer Defends Post 9/11 Interrogations
- Torture report divides Republicans
- McCain Says CIA Tactics ‘Stained Our National Honor’
- Senator compares CIA’s actions to ‘war crimes’
- Hagel Says Torture Report ‘Not A New Issue’
- US embassies issue warnings after CIA report
- FBI Says CIA Torture Report May Spark Terror Threat
- Bush Defends CIA ‘Patriots’ on Eve of Senate’s ‘Torture Report’
‘It’s easy to strike a pose of cynicism when contemplating Hillary Clinton’s inevitable (and terribly imminent) presidential campaign. As a drearily soulless, principle-free, power-hungry veteran of DC’s game of thrones, she’s about as banal of an American politician as it gets. One of the few unique aspects to her, perhaps the only one, is how the genuinely inspiring gender milestone of her election will (following the Obama model) be exploited to obscure her primary role as guardian of the status quo.
That she’s the beneficiary of dynastic succession – who may very well be pitted against the next heir in line from the regal Bush dynasty (this one, not yet this one) – makes it all the more tempting to regard #HillaryTime with an evenly distributed mix of boredom and contempt. The tens of millions of dollars the Clintons have jointly “earned” off their political celebrity – much of it speaking to the very globalists, industry groups, hedge funds, and other Wall Street appendages who would have among the largest stake in her presidency – make the spectacle that much more depressing.
But one shouldn’t be so jaded. There is genuine and intense excitement over the prospect of (another) Clinton presidency. Many significant American factions regard her elevation to the Oval Office as an opportunity for rejuvenation, as a stirring symbol of hope and change, as the vehicle for vital policy advances.’
- Why Wall Street Loves Hillary
- Would Hillary Be Good For the Holy Land?
- The Next Act for Neocons: … Getting Ready to Ally With Hillary Clinton
- Events in Iraq Open Door for Interventionist Revival, Historian Says
- Key Democrats, Led by Hillary Clinton, Leave No doubt that Endless War is Official U.S. Doctrine
- Hillary Clinton Praises Henry Kissinger, A Man With Lots of Blood on His Hands
- How Hillary Clinton’s ‘smart power’ turned Libya into a dumpster fire
- Hillary Clinton: I wanted to arm Syrian rebels, but Obama refused
- Hillary Clinton 2016: A Recipe for Endless War
- Warren Buffett predicts Hillary Clinton will win presidency in 2016
- Glenn Greenwald on a President Hillary: “Opposition to her is going to be depicted as misogynistic”
- Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party’s Pro-War, Anti-Civil Liberties Front-Runner
- Elizabeth Warren dodges questions about big business’ influence on Hillary Clinton
- Ten major ways Rand Paul and Hillary Clinton are exactly the same
- Hillary Clinton: Edward Snowden’s Leaks Helped Terrorists
- How the Clintons went from ‘dead broke’ to rich
- Hillary Clinton’s Speaking Circuit Payday
‘Months after President Obama frankly admitted that the United States had “tortured some folks” as part of the War on Terror, a new report submitted to the United Nations Committee Against Torture has been released that excoriates his administration for shielding the officials responsible from prosecution.
The report describes the post-9/11 torture program as “breathtaking in scope”, and indicts both the Bush and Obama administrations for complicity in it – the former through design and implementation, and the latter through its ongoing attempts to obstruct justice. Noting that the program caused grievous harm to countless individuals and in many cases went as far as murder, the report calls for the United States to “promptly and impartially prosecute senior military and civilian officials responsible for authorizing, acquiescing, or consenting in any way to acts of torture.”’
- Peace Prize Laureates Urge Disclosure on U.S. Torture
- Is Obama Stalling Until Republicans Can Bury the CIA Torture Report?
- The truth about torture is Obama never wants you to find it
- Senate’s inquiry into CIA torture sidesteps blaming Bush, aides
- Panetta Says Rahm Emanuel Cussed Him Out for Cooperating With Torture Inquiry
- Obama Admits He Banned Only “Some” of the CIA’s Torture Techniques
- President Obama’s Whitewashed History of US Torture
- Contrary to Obama’s promises, the US military still permits torture
- The Torture Architects (Infographic)
- General Taguba Report on Torture
‘[…] The incident for which the men were tried was the single largest known massacre of Iraqi civilians at the hands of private U.S. security contractors. Known as “Baghdad’s bloody Sunday,” operatives from Blackwater gunned down 17 Iraqi civilians at a crowded intersection at Nisour Square on September 16, 2007. The company, founded by secretive right-wing Christian supremacist Erik Prince, had deep ties to the Bush Administration and served as a sort of neoconservative Praetorian Guard for a borderless war launched in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.
While Barack Obama pledged to reign in mercenary forces when he was a senator, once he became president he continued to employ a massive shadow army of private contractors. Blackwater — despite numerous scandals, congressional investigations, FBI probes and documented killings of civilians in both Iraq and Afghanistan — remained a central part of the Obama administration’s global war machine throughout his first term in office.
Just as with the systematic torture at Abu Ghraib, it is only the low level foot-soldiers of Blackwater that are being held accountable. Prince and other top Blackwater executives continue to reap profits from the mercenary and private intelligence industries. Prince now has a new company, Frontier Services Group, which he founded with substantial investment from Chinese enterprises and which focuses on opportunities in Africa. Prince recently suggested that his forces at Blackwater could have confronted Ebola and ISIS. “If the administration cannot rally the political nerve or funding to send adequate active duty ground forces to answer the call, let the private sector finish the job,” he wrote.’
- Blackwater Mercs Found Guilty Over 2007 Baghdad Massacre
- US jury convicts Blackwater security guards in deaths of Iraqi civilians
- 30 Minute documentary on the Nisour Square massacre
- Blackwater Founder Wants to Fight Ebola, ISIS, and for the GOP to ‘Get Off Their Ass’
- Blackwater Threatened To Kill State Deptartment Investigator
- Former CEO reveals Blackwater worked as ‘virtual extension of the CIA’
- Erik Prince Is Making A Huge Bet On China’s Thirst For African Commodities
- Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army
‘One of the most accidentally revealing media accounts highlighting the real meaning of “democracy” in U.S. discourse is a still-remarkable 2002 New York Times Editorial on the U.S.-backed military coup in Venezuela, which temporarily removed that country’s democratically elected (and very popular) president, Hugo Chávez. Rather than describe that coup as what it was by definition – a direct attack on democracy by a foreign power and domestic military which disliked the popularly elected president – the Times, in the most Orwellian fashion imaginable, literally celebrated the coup as a victory for democracy:
With yesterday’s resignation of President Hugo Chávez, Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator. Mr. Chávez, a ruinous demagogue, stepped down after the military intervened and handed power to a respected business leader, Pedro Carmona.
Thankfully, said the NYT, democracy in Venezuela was no longer in danger . . . because the democratically-elected leader was forcibly removed by the military and replaced by an unelected, pro-U.S. “business leader.” The Champions of Democracy at the NYT then demanded a ruler more to their liking: “Venezuela urgently needs a leader with a strong democratic mandate to clean up the mess, encourage entrepreneurial freedom and slim down and professionalize the bureaucracy.”’
‘Yesterday the New York Times published a major scoop: American troops had uncovered chemical weapons during the Iraq war, and on at least six occasions were injured by chemical agents. The government then frantically tried to conceal the WMDs, keeping the information classified and, in some cases, denying soldiers care for chemical-related injuries.
There are plenty of conclusions to draw from the Times story.
That the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq is vindicated is not one of them.
The Times reports that many of the chemical weapons were empty, most were unusable, and all were manufactured before 1991. This fits with the current wisdom that Saddam Hussein abandoned his chemical weapons program after the First Gulf War.
As the Times concludes, “The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale.”
Still that hasn’t stopped many conservatives from engaging in a little hackneyed told-you-so. “Put that ‘Bush lied, kids died’ in your pipes and smoke it!!!” went today’s typical Tweet.’
- U.S. Covered Up Evidence of Long-Abandoned Chemical Weapons Program in Iraq
- The Secret Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons
- Did the U.S. take care of its troops who were exposed?
- Islamic State militants do not appear to have seized any chemical weapons
- The Islamic State May Be Using Saddam’s Chemical Weapons Against the Kurds
‘James Risen’s new book on war-on-terror abuses comes out tomorrow, and if you want to find a copy it shouldn’t be hard to obtain. As natural as that seems, it almost wasn’t the case with the Risen’s last book, “State of War,” published in 2006. Not only did U.S. government officials object to the publication of the book on national security grounds, it turns out they pressured Les Moonves, the CEO of CBS, to have it killed.
The campaign to stifle Risen’s national security reporting at the Times is already well-documented, but a 60 Minutes story last night provided a glimpse into how deeply these efforts extended into the publishing world, as well. After being blocked from reporting on the NSA’s warrantless surveillance program for the paper of record, Risen looked into getting these revelations out through a book he was already under contract to write for Simon & Schuster, a book that would look at a wide range of intelligence missteps in the war on terror.’