Tribute credit card application
Trw credit reports
Check my credit score
Best credit card rebates
California home loan mortgage refinance loan california
Citibank credit card application
Three credit reporting companies
Life insurance for kids
Discount life insurance
Fha home mortgage loan bad credit loan california refinance
Insurance sexual health problems
Automotive warranty
Insurance life leads
Homeowner insurance quotes
Credit debt consolidation
Aig annuity insurance company
Find credit score models
Mexican auto insurance
Credit score interpretation
Free annual credit report
Health insurance policy
Online payday loans
Vue prepaid credit card
Instant free credit report
Best payday loan
Cash til payday loan
Lo apr credit cards
Money bank credit card
California home refinance rate california home loan mortgage
Hawaii home loans
Credit reporting agencies
Compare renters insurance
Check my credit report
Commercial mortgage loan rate
Loan until payday
And long term care insurance
Will my credit score
Credit reports 3
Free instant credit score
Credit repair tips letters
Hsbc credit card login
Metlife auto insurance
Credit card debt forgiveness
Avoid credit card debt
Credit card debt cancellation
Business credit report repair
Capital one redit card
Refinance mortgage rates hardin county ohio
Online credit repair
Credit reporting system
Alternative credit card processing
Credit score tips
Credit card debt information
No credit check student loans
Ge long term care insurance
Home loan mortgage second california refinance
Aarp health insurance
Home equity loan best rate
Home mortgage refinance loan
Genworth long term care insurance
Free tax debt relief
Reports on credit
California life insurance
Debt consolidation uk
Home loans bad credit
Affect my credit score
Federal student loan forgiveness
Home equity rates
Credit plus score
Student loan repayment
Long term health care insurance in london
Instant issue life insurance
Home equity loan rates
Auto insurance quotation
Unlimited credit reports
Debt consolidation home equity loans
Walmart credit card services

I’ve been accused of being a “conspiracy theorist” and “America hater.” Here’s my response:

First, a question: What were you up to in April of 2001, six months before 9/11? I mean given that you must love America?

Here’s what I was doing, while taking care of my dying Mom and being broke and dealing with a demented editor while trying to make a book out of my Central America journey and not getting laid and worrying about all kinds of other personal stuff: I was trying to warn America that terrorists would strike via suicide pilots in commercial aircraft, that’s what I was doing. I wrote newsletter saying how Bush was lying to us all with his rationalization for Star Wars; Bush was claiming we needed it to protect America from terrorists (he was predicting they’d use ICBMs to attack us). Predictably, the media would not go near calling him on this utter horseshit – which was meant to make his corporate cronies richer (plus create an offensive weapon platform in space).

As I say, the media never challenges Bush on his motives.

So I wrote a press release and sent it to a couple hundred media outlets. Right: Six months prior to 9/11 I was trying to protect America from suicide terrorists in commercial jets; trying to protect America from a lying shitball motherfucker of a president. (As far as I know, only NPR picked it up — they used my exact words, although un-attributed.)

Again: What were you America lovers doing in April of 2001?

Too bad no one listened to me then, huh?

One more thing: When Bush attacked Iraq and said the Iraqis will welcome his liberating forces with “open arms,” I said to anyone who would listen: “He’s nuts. After what we’ve been doing to that country for the last 20 odd years, he’s going be in a shit storm like he’s never imagined.”

I’ve spelled out the inescapable logic here on this site, in States of Denial (Part Two).

So: I’ve beaten all the multi-billion dollar think tanks and intelligence organizations and Joint Chiefs and neo-con and liberal pundits in predicting the two most devastating catastrophes in recent American history. Haven’t I?

Yet I’m a “conspiracy theorist” and an “America hater.”

Maybe I’m just someone who pays attention to what’s going on around him. (Right: except when I fall in love with a sociopath.)

Democracy Subversion

Here’s the raw stuff my researcher came up with regarding democracy subversion by the U.S. government since WW II.

I’ll be refining and expanding this stuff as soon as I can get around to it.

A reminder: I’m not an “America hater.” I simply believe that in a (real) democracy people should know the truth about their government’s actions, not only the information provided by a non-adversarial, corporate-controlled media.

GREECE 1940s (Greek Civil War)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Civil_War

GUATEMALA 1954 (Operation PBSUCCESS)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_PBSUCCESS

CHILE 1973 (Chilean Coup)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_coup_of_1973

IRAN 1953 (The Shah)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi

Venezuela

Afghanistan

Bolivia

Haiti

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/09/12/the_folly_of_exporting_democracy.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_Democracy

http://members.aol.com/superogue/ned.htm

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/ChomOdon_Democracy.html

http://www.countercurrents.org/bangla-hashmi200906.htm

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/aug2006/paki-a26.shtml

http://www.omnicenter.org/warpeacecollection/dictators.htm

http://www.apk2000.dk/netavisen/artikler/global_debat/2002-1126_us_imp_basic_stats.htm

http://wais.stanford.edu/USA/us_supportforladictators8303.html

http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0511190166&ss=exc

Argentina

At first, the United States government was willing to maintain normal diplomatic relations with Argentina, though transcripts show U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and the U.S. ambassador to Argentina in conflict over how the new regime should be treated, with Kissinger preferring to remain friendly based on anti-Communist interests despite talk of human rights abuses. This changed in 1977 with the inauguration of President Jimmy Carter, who implemented a strict stance against human rights abuses even when dealing with friendly governments. U.S.-Argentine relations remained lukewarm at best until Ronald Reagan became president in 1981. His administration sought the assistance of the Argentinean intelligence services in training the Contras for guerrilla warfare against the new Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Because of this, Videla maintained a relatively friendly relationship with the U.S. under the Reagan administration, though the junta later fell out of favor with the U.S. over the Falklands War after Videla had stepped down.

A Crusade
In a grander context, Videla and the other generals saw their mission as a crusade to defend Western Civilization against international communism. They worked closely with the Asian-based World Anti-Communist League and its Latin American affiliate, the Confederacion Anticomunista Latinoamericana [CAL].
Latin American militaries collaborated on projects such as the cross-border assassinations of political dissidents. Under one project, called Operation Condor, political leaders — centrist and leftist alike — were shot or bombed in Buenos Aires, Rome, Madrid, Santiago and Washington, D.C. Operation Condor often employed CIA-trained Cuban exiles as assassins.
In 1980, four years after the coup, the Argentine military exported its terror tactics into neighboring Bolivia. There, Argentine intelligence operatives helped Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie and major drug lords mount a brutal putsch, known as the Cocaine Coup. The bloody operation turned Bolivia into the first modern drug state and expanded cocaine smuggling into the United States.
Videla’s anything-goes anti-communism struck a responsive chord with the Reagan administration which came to power in 1981. President Reagan quickly reversed President Carter’s condemnation of the Argentine junta’s record on human rights. Reagan’s U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick even hosted the urbane Argentine generals at an elegant state dinner.
More substantively, Reagan authorized CIA collaboration with the Argentine intelligence service for training and arming the Nicaraguan contras. The contras were soon implicated in human rights atrocities and drug smuggling of their own. But the contras benefitted from the Reagan administration’s "perception management" operation which portrayed them as "the moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers."
In 1982, however, the Argentine military went a step too far. Possibly deluded by its new coziness with Washington, the army invaded the British-controlled Falkland Islands. Given the even-closer Washington-London alliance, the Reagan administration sided with Margaret Thatcher’s government, which crushed the Argentine invaders in a brief war.
The humiliated generals relinquished power in 1983. Then, after democratic elections, the new president Raul Alfonsin created a truth commission to collect evidence about the Dirty War crimes. The grisly details shocked Argentines and the world.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Human_Rights/VidelaArgentinaTerror.html

Bolivia
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid%3A83682

Our Bolivian Friends

Just in case you’ve lost your handy itemized list of CIA-backed insurrections in South America, in 1971 — when David Dewhurst was (as he told me this week) "a 26-year-old CIA case officer assigned to the U.S. embassy in La Paz" — Bolivian Gen. Hugo Banzer Suárez carried out a successful military coup against the elected government of Gen. Juan José Torres. (Torres had nationalized the mineral holdings of Gulf Oil and done other things that offended the U.S. government.) Banzer received (unofficially, of course) both CIA and U.S. Air Force support in the coup — not surprisingly, since he was trained at Fort Hunt and the notorious U.S. School of the Americas. The general quickly took the kind of actions for which SOA graduates are so renowned, as summarized recently in Whiteout, Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair’s book on the CIA: "Even in Bolivia, the overthrow of the Torres government became known for its extreme violence and the lengths the new regime took to eradicate leftist elements in the country. Universities were shut down as ‘hotbeds’ of radicalism, tin miners were once again violently suppressed, more than 3,000 leftists and union organizers were hauled in for interrogations and ‘disappeared.’"

Of course, by the dismal standards of CIA-sustained regimes like Somoza’s Nicaragua or United Fruit’s Guatemala, Banzer’s 1971-78 dictatorship was rather small beer. To paraphrase Mercutio, it did suffice. In addition to the CIA, Banzer had other helpful cronies — most notably Klaus Barbie, the notorious Gestapo "Butcher of Lyons," spirited out of France and into Bolivia by the U.S. in 1951. Over the years Barbie provided regular "intelligence" and other assistance to the CIA and was particularly useful to the Banzer government. According to a Bolivian government report, he provided advice on "how to adapt the military effectively for internal repression rather than external aggression. … The system of concentration camps [developed by Barbie] became standard for important military and political prisoners." The report also recounts Barbie’s helpful counsel to the secret police in methods of interrogation, including professionally supervised electrical torture designed to extract the maximum amount of information before the subject expired.

On August 18, 1971, General Banzer Suárez, at long last, masterminded a successful military uprising that erupted in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, where he had many supporters. Eventually, the plotters gained control over the La Paz garrisons, although not without considerable bloodshed. The roles of the United States and Brazil in supporting the coup have been debated.

Brazil – list of presidents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_Brazil

Brunei
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassanal_Bolkiah

Cambodia
For U.S. support to Pol Pot and his genocide:
http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/pilgerpolpotnus.pdf

The U.S. opposed the Vietnamese military occupation of Cambodia, and in the mid-1980s supported insurgents opposed to the regime of Heng Samrin, approving $5 million in aid to the KPNLF of former prime minister Son Sann and the pro-Sihanouk ANS in 1985. Despite this, Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge remained the best-trained and most capable of the three insurgent groups who, despite sharply divergent ideologies, had formed the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea (CGDK) alliance three years earlier. China continued to funnel extensive military aid to the Khmer Rouge, and critics of U.S. foreign policy claimed that the U.S. was indirectly sponsoring the Khmer Rouge due to U.S. assistance given the CGDK in keeping control of the United Nations "seat" of Cambodia. [3] [4] [5] The U.S. refused to recognize the Cambodian government installed by the army of Vietnam or to recognize any Cambodian government operating while Cambodia was under the military occupation of Vietnam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_pot

Chile

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/americas/09/19/us.cia.chile.ap/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet

Pinochet and allende

Cuba

http://www.themilitant.com/1996/6012/6012_27.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista

Dominican Republic

The Dominican Republic suffered under the brutal dictatorship of Rafael Trujillo for thirty one years. With support of the United States General Rafael Molino Trujillo took control of the Dominican Republic in 1930 and ruled until his assassination in 1961. Trujillo amassed a huge fortune at the expense of his people while repressing all opposition. A movement of young Dominicans tried unsuccessfully to overthrow the dictatorship. However his rule was finally ended in 1961 when wealthy Dominicans unhappy with the dictator had him killed. In the twentieth century the Dominican Republic has not been able to establish a stable democratic government due several interventions by the US and the dictatorship of Rafael Trujillo.

El Salvador

http://novaonline.nvcc.edu/eli/evans/HIS135/Events/ElSalvador80/Salvador80.html

Need a better link: this one is wishy washy

Greece

http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch26gr.htm

However much or little the plotters had been encouraged by the United States, they were men with strong wills responding to what was happening in Greece. But there were some who saw the coup as an imperialist CIA plot. It was when the CIA was enjoying a lot of freedom of action. The CIA has been described as reporting on January 23, 1967, that a group that included Andreas Papandreou was plotting a coup. The coup leaders are described as having had contacts with the CIA. It alleged that Lyndon Johnson, prior to the coup, speaking to Greece’s ambassador to the United States regarding Cyprus:

We pay a lot of good American dollars to the Greeks. If your Prime Minister gives me talk about democracy, parliament and constitutions, he, his parliament and his constitution, may not last very long.

Guatemala

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ronald_Reagan/Reagan_Guatemala.html

Ronald Reagan’s election in November 1980 set off celebrations in the well-to-do communities of Central America.

After four years of Jimmy Carter’s human rights nagging, the region’s anticommunist hard-liners were thrilled that they had someone in the White House who understood their problems.

The oligarchs and the generals had good reason for the optimism. For years, Reagan had been a staunch defender of right-wing regimes that engaged in bloody counterinsurgency campaigns against leftist enemies.
In the late 1970s, when Carter’s human rights coordinator, Pat Derian, criticized the Argentine military for its "dirty war" — tens of thousands of "disappearances," tortures and murders -then-political commentator Reagan joshed that she should "walk a mile in the moccasins" of the Argentine generals before criticizing them.
Despite his aw shucks style, Reagan found virtually every anticommunist action justified, no matter how brutal. From his eight years in the White House, there is no historical indication that he was troubled by the bloodbath and even genocide that occurred in Central America during his presidency, while he was shipping hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to the implicated forces.

The death toll was staggering — an estimated 70,000 or more political killings in El Salvador, possibly 20,000 slain from the contra war in Nicaragua, about 200 political "disappearances" in Honduras and some 100,000 people eliminated during a resurgence of political violence in Guatemala.

The one consistent element in these slaughters was the overarching Cold War rationalization, emanating in large part from Ronald Reagan’s White House.

Yet, as the world community moves to punish war crimes in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, no substantive discussion has occurred in the United States about facing up to this horrendous record of the 1980s.

Rather than a debate about Reagan as a potential war criminal, the ailing ex-president is honored as a conservative icon with his name attached to Washington National Airport and with an active legislative push to have his face carved into Mount Rushmore.

When the national news media does briefly acknowledge the barbarities of the 1980s in Central America, it is in the context of one-day stories about the little countries bravely facing up to their violent pasts.
At times, the CIA is fingered abstractly as a bad supporting actor in the violent dramas. But never does the national press lay blame on individual American officials.

The grisly reality of Central America was most recently revisited on Feb. 25 when a Guatemalan truth commission issued a report on the staggering human rights crimes that occurred during a 34-year civil war.
The Historical Clarification Commission, an independent human rights body, estimated that the conflict claimed the lives of some 200,000 people with the most savage bloodletting occurring in the 1980s.

Bitter Fruit

Indonesia

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/East_Timor_RSChom.html

One gruesome illustration was the coup that brought General Suharto to power in 1965. Army-led massacres slaughtered hundreds of thousands, mostly landless peasants, in a few months, destroying the mass-based political party of the left, the PKI. The achievement elicited unrestrained euphoria in the West and fulsome praise for the Indonesian "moderates," Suharto and his military accomplices, who had cleansed the society and opened it to foreign plunder. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara informed Congress that US military aid and training had "paid dividends"-including half a million corpses-"enormous dividends," a congressional report concluded. McNamara informed President Johnson that US military assistance "encouraged [the army] to move against the PKI when the opportunity was presented." Contacts with Indonesian military officers, including university programs, were "very significant factors in determining the favorable orientation of the new Indonesian political elite" (the army).

The degree of cooperation between Washington and Jakarta is impressive. US weapons sales to Indonesia amount to over $1 billion since the 1975 invasion. Military aid during the Clinton years is at about $150 million.

Through the 1990s, the US continued support for "our kind of guy," as General Suharto was described by the Clinton administration before he fell from grace by losing control and failing to implement harsh IMF orders with sufficient ardor. After the 1991 Dili massacre, Congress restricted arms sales and banned US training of the Indonesian military, but Clinton found devious ways to evade the ban. Congress expressed its "outrage," reiterating that "it was and is the intent of Congress to prohibit US military training for Indonesia," as readers of the Far Eastern Economic Review and dissident publications here could learn. But to no avail.

Inquiries about Clinton’s programs received the routine response from the State Department: US military training serves the positive function of exposing foreign militaries to US values. These values were exhibited as military aid to Indonesia flowed and government-licensed sales of armaments increased fivefold from fiscal year 1997 to 1998. In April 1999, shortly after the massacre of dozens of refugees who had taken shelter in a church in Liquica, Admiral Dennis Blair, US Pacific commander, assured TNI commander General Wiranto of US support and assistance, proposing a new US training mission.

Iran

http://www.lewrockwell.com/latulippe/latulippe41.html

In 1951, the control of Iran’s oil fields by a British company (the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, or AIOC) became a hot political topic. The Iranian people believed, with some justification, that the existing deal between the Iranian government and AIOC unfairly benefited the company. Muhammad Mossadeq, then a member of the Iranian parliament, took the lead in demanding a renegotiation of the pact. The masses of the Iranian people rallied to his standard and quickly made him the most revered leader in the land. The Shah, who then ruled as an authoritarian monarch, lost control of events as his previously powerless parliament (the Majlis) took on a life of its own.

As Mackay notes:

With Mossadeq leading the charge against Iran’s economic master, the Majlis, on March 15, boldly nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company…On April 29, the same Majlis elected Muhammad Mossadeq prime minister. While the shah sat on the throne as a mere shadow, Muhammad Mossadeq basked in the acclaim of the vast majority of Iranians, who for the first time in decades gave their genuine respect, devotion, and loyalty to their recognized leader.

While I certainly don’t condone his socialistic tendencies or his seizure of the oilfields, it is undeniable that by the time of his elevation to prime minister, Mossadeq had the backing of the overwhelming majority of the Iranian population. For the first time in its long history, Iran had a democratically elected leader.

By 1953, Mossadeq was in an increasingly difficult situation. Oil revenues had plummeted due to a boycott of Iranian oil and the economy slumped. The Soviet-backed Iranian communist party was becoming increasingly aggressive, and Washington began to worry. Iran was a vital chess piece in the Cold War and the American oil companies had their eyes on future concessions there. Mossadeq had become an "issue" for some very powerful people.

Eventually, the decision was made in Washington that Mossadeq had to go. Brigadier General Norman Schwarzkopf (father of the Gulf War commander) and CIA guru Kermit Roosevelt (grandson of Teddy) were ordered to begin a covert operation designed to remove Mossadeq and restore the Shah to absolute authority. A complex plot, codenamed Operation Ajax, was conceived and executed from the US Embassy in Tehran.

Using CIA assets in the Iranian military and various minor political parties, an uprising was staged.

Congo

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Congo_KH.html
The Eisenhower administration supported the Belgian military intervention on behalf of Katanga; indeed, the American embassy had previously requested such intervention. Influencing this policy, in addition to Washington’s ideological aversion to Lumumba, was the fact that a number of prominent administration officials had financial ties to the Katanga wealth.

The UN force entered Katanga province and replaced the Belgian troops, but made no effort to end the secession. Unable to put down this uprising on his own, as well as one in another province, Lumumba had appealed to the United Nations as well as the United States to supply him with transport for his troops. When they both refused, he turned to the Soviet Union for aid, and received it, though military success still eluded him.

The Congo was in turmoil in many places. In the midst of it, on 5 September, president Joseph Kasavubu suddenly dismissed Lumumba as prime minister-a step of very debatable legality, taken with much American encouragement and assistance, as Kasavubu "sat at the feet of the CIA men". …

…Even during this period, with Lumumba not really in power, "CIA and high Administration officials continued to view him as a threat" …

In late September, the CIA sent one of its scientists, Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, to the Congo carrying "lethal biological material" (a virus) specifically intended for use in Lumumba’s assassination. The virus, which was supposed to produce a fatal disease indigenous to the Congo area of Africa, was transported via diplomatic pouch.

In 1975, the Church committee went on record with the conclusion that Allen Dulles had ordered Lumumba’s assassination as "an urgent and prime objective" (Dulles’s words). After hearing the testimony of several officials who believed that the order to kill the African leader had emanated originally from President Eisenhower, the committee decided that there was a "reasonable inference" that this was indeed the case…

…The Church committee observed, however, that the CIA station in Leopoldville continued to maintain close contact with Congolese who expressed a desire to assassinate Lumumba. CIA officers encouraged and offered to aid these Congolese in their efforts against Lumumba, although there is no evidence that aid was ever provided for the specific purpose of assassination…

…The United States had also been involved in the takeover of government by Mobutu-
whom author and CIA-confidant Andrew Tully described as having been "discovered by the CIA." Mobutu detained Lumumba until 17 January 1961 when he transferred his prisoner into the hands of Moise Tshombe of Katanga province, Lumumba’s bitter enemy. Lumumba was assassinated the same day.

Turkey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turgut_Ozal

I’m just going to reproduce the relevant emails I’ve managed to find in my Yahoo account as is. Some are redundant – reproduced more than once. Someday I’ll get around to organizing them better. I’m not in the mood right now. Sorry! (As is the case with emails, it’s best to read them from the bottom up, but in any case, you’ll get the drift.)

I’m adding explanatory comments in bold.

Date:Mon, 21 Feb 2005 03:52:33 -0800 (PST)

From:"Allan Weisbecker" <acwdownsouth@yahoo.com> View Contact

Details Add Mobile Alert

Subject:zero

To:"The Producer" <XXXX@XXXXXcom>

This refers to our talk on the phone (in the book) wherein I gave her the same criticism (of the new script, by another writer) that I gave for the director’s dumb ass outline.

To (The Producer),

i have some other notes that have occurred to me since

our talk. best would be that you do as you said: send

your notes on our call and i´ll add to them, as well

as the obvious places (and some not so obvious) where

you can cut stuff.

i strongly advise you to have [the Other Writer] read my draft.

there are a lot of little things ´to make use of.

(if you´re thinking i´m thinking of shared credit here

or somesuch ulterior motive, think again. i´d be glad

to put that in writing. i´d just prefer that if you do

make a movie of my book, it´s not a total

embarrassment.)

of course, the idea that you´d turn down an offer of

free help from me would fit perfectly into how this

has gone from the start.

my best draft is exactly 120 pages (goes right to the

bottom of page 120) and i think dated May 4. if you

don´t have that one i´ll send it.

on the other hand, [the Other Writer] might read my draft then put

a gun to his head… or to [the Director’s].

allan

> —–Original Message—–

> From: Allan Weisbecker

> [mailto:acwdownsouth@yahoo.com]

> Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 1:08 PM

> To: [To The Producer ] Home

> Subject: [SPAM] RE: [SPAM] RE: allan w resurfaces

>

> yeah, i have TB, which should make sean smile,

> seeing

> as how he wished me death.

>

> what kind of changes he want? stuff like turning

> points and an ending?

> Allan

>

— (To me from the Producer) Home <XXXX@XXXXX.com> wrote:

> Allan, you are being silly. Sean said you are a good

> writer, and forget all

> that Hollywood stuff. The changes are in the way

> your character is written.

> I’m really sorry to hear about the TB. Are you on

> antibiotics?

> Agi

>

__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!

http://my.yahoo.com

This one refers to my email exchange with Mr. Penn.

Date:Sat, 25 Jun 2005 15:33:44 -0700 (PDT)

From:"Allan Weisbecker" <acwdownsouth@yahoo.com> View Contact

Details Add Mobile Alert

Subject:RE: [SPAM] RE: [SPAM] RE: allan w resurfaces

To:" To The Producer" <XXXX@XXXXX.com>

To The Producer,

please. i’m not the one with the "hollywood stuff"

problem. penn was a contractual producer on a project

wherein i was the writer and he refused to read the

first 30 pages of my draft, which was all i asked of

him. (if this is incorrect, if i’m missing something,

please let me know.)

so he spends more time writing me an email explaining

why he’s not going to read my 30 pages and giving me

sage advice than he would have reading the fucking 30

pages. he got outraged when i pointed out this

obvious, silly truth.

or maybe by the "hollywood stuff" i should forget you

mean my screenplay going from brilliant to

unacceptable (to you) because some MBA or lawyer or

whatever he was doesn’t know squat about storytelling.

i guess your telling me that i of all people should

forget the hollywood stuff struck me the wrong way.

Allan

yes, i’m on antibiotics. i’ll be okay, the docs say.

thank you for your concern.

the bottom line problem [the Director] will have with this

project is that — as opposed to his two documentaries

– he’ll actually have to shoot film on this one.

> — [To The Producer] Home <XXXX@XXXXX.com> wrote:

>

> > Hey, heard from your website that you were having

> > health issues. Is

> > everything cool?

> >

> > We’re on a holding pattern since Sean went to

> cover

> > the elections in Tehran

> > and is now writing the article for the S.F.

> > Chronicle. He likes the script,

> > but wants some changes.

> >

> > I’ll let you know.

> > [To The Producer]

> >

> > —–Original Message—–

> > From: Allan Weisbecker

> > [mailto:acwdownsouth@yahoo.com]

> > Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 6:27 AM

> > To: XXXX@XXXXX.com

> > Subject: [SPAM] RE: allan w resurfaces

> >

> > [To The Producer],

> >

> > so what’s up? you ready to show folks my script

> yet?

> >

> > Allan

> >

> > — [To The Producer] <XXXX@XXXXX.com> wrote:

> >

> > > Hey Allan,

> > > I’ve had a pretty good track record so far, and

> > this

> > > will become a great

> > > film one way or another. You will be kept in the

> > > loop.

> > > [To The Producer]

> > >

> > > —–Original Message—–

> > > From: Allan Weisbecker

> > > [mailto:acwdownsouth@yahoo.com]

> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 5:11 AM

> > > To: XXXX@XXXXX.com

> > > Subject: RE: allan w resurfaces

> > >

> > > thanks. good luck and keep in mind my

> > > prediction/suggestion. it’s really your hope and

> > > mine

> > > too.

> > > allan

This one backs up a lot of my assertions regarding this fiasco.

> > > > —–Original Message—–

> > > > From: Allan Weisbecker

> > > > [mailto:acwdownsouth@yahoo.com]

> > > > Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 6:01 AM

> > > > To: [To The Producer]

> > > > Subject: allan w resurfaces

> > > >

> > > > To [To The Producer]

> > > >

> > > > Sorry for the long delay in getting back to

> you.

> > I

> > > > have not had Net access for 3 weeks, and both

> my

> > > > laptop and desktop crashed. Third World shit.

> > > >

> > > > Anyway, been thinking and have decided not to

> > > > contribute any more suggestions as to the

> [Other Writer’s]

> > > > script

> > > > - except to say that my book is not a

> > "Biography"

> > > as

> > > > you put it in your notes of our phone

> > > conversation.

> > > > It’s a memoir. (If it were a biography it

> would

> > be

> > > > an

> > > > "autobiography," but it’s not a biography.)

> > > Anyway,

> > > > the credit, in the event that that becomes an

> > > issue,

> > > > should read, "Based on the book by Allan

> > > > Weisbecker."

> > > > That’s the way it always reads on the screen

> > when

> > > a

> > > > movie is based on a book. They never put

> "novel"

> > > or

> > > > some such. Always "book." Just so you know.

> > > >

> > > > Two reasons for no more suggestions. The first

> > is

> > > > that

> > > > I already made a bunch of them, most of which

> I

> > > (in

> > > > effect) repeated in our phone conversation.

> All

> > of

> > > > the

> > > > suggestions were made in my critique of

> [the Director’s]

> > > > outline way back in 2003. My combativeness and

> > > > sarcasm

> > > > should not have prevented you from seeing that

> > the

> > > > outline was useless.

> > > >

> > > > That the [Other Writer’s] script is based on that same

> > > > outline

> > > > is obvious from start to finish. The absolute

> > > > dumbest

> > > > stuff from the outline was there in the

> > > screenplay.

> > > > (The bandit/credit card scene is one that

> comes

> > to

> > > > mind, but there are plenty more, such as

> having

> > > the

> > > > biggest turning point in the story - the break

> > up

> > > of

> > > > the friends — related via DIALOG with someone

> > > > irrelevant to the relationship (and that there

> > was

> > > > no

> > > > CONFLICT involved in the break up)… christ,

> i

> > > > truly

> > > > could go on and on.)

> > > >

> > > > Since my suggestions were ignored before, they

> > > > certainly will be again, so why bother?

> > > >

> > > > The second reason for no more suggestions is

> > this:

> > > > The

> > > > way I see it going is that you’ll send out

> some

> > > > version of the [Other Writer’s] script and no one will

> > want

> > > > to

> > > > have anything to do with it, due to

> > insurmountable

> > > > story problems.

> > > >

> > > > Eventually it will occur to you (certainly not

> > to

> > > > [the Studio] and most certainly not to [the Director]) that

> you

> > > have

> > > > had a "brilliant" (your words) script all the

> > time

> > > -

> > > > mine. You’ll (one way or another) get it out

> to

> > > some

> > > > people.

>

=== message truncated ===

__________________________________

>

> —–Original Message—–

> From: Allan Weisbecker

> [mailto:acwdownsouth@yahoo.com]

> Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 6:27 AM

> To: XXXX@XXXXX.com

> Subject: [SPAM] RE: allan w resurfaces

>

> [To The Producer],

>

> so what’s up? you ready to show folks my script yet?

>

> Allan

>

— [From The Producer] <XXXX@XXXXX.com> wrote:

> Hey, heard from your website that you were having

> health issues. Is

> everything cool?

>

> We’re on a holding pattern since Sean went to cover

> the elections in Tehran

> and is now writing the article for the S.F.

> Chronicle. He likes the script,

> but wants some changes.

>

> I’ll let you know.

> Agi

Date:Sat, 25 Jun 2005 13:04:40 -0700 (PDT)

From:"Allan Weisbecker" <acwdownsouth@yahoo.com> View Contact

Details Add Mobile Alert

Subject:RE: [SPAM] RE: allan w resurfaces

To:"[ To The Producer] Home" XXXX@XXXXX.com

yeah, i have TB, which should make sean smile, seeing

as how he wished me death.

what kind of changes he want? stuff like turning

points and an ending?

Allan

> Allan,

> > > I’ll let you know what

> > > happens. Glad you like [new film]. I think

> it’s

> > a

> > > real piece of

> > > filmmaking compared to Step Into Liquid, which

> has

> > > it’s charm. If I get any

> > > good DVD’s I’ll send them your way.

> > > The Producer

The hilarious aspect of the “new movie” (a surfing documentary) is that, like the “Director’s” first one, this almost all archival footage too! He only directed the interviews. So now he’s “directed” two films (both good), without having directed anything but talking heads.

Relentless.

> > >

> > > —–Original Message—–

> > > From: Allan Weisbecker

> > > [mailto:acwdownsouth@yahoo.com]

> > > Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 6:01 AM

> > > To: The Producer

> > > Subject: allan w resurfaces

> > >

> > > [To The Producer],

> > >

> > > Sorry for the long delay in getting back to you.

> I

> > > have not had Net access for 3 weeks, and both my

> > > laptop and desktop crashed. Third World shit.

> > >

> > > Anyway, been thinking and have decided not to

> > > contribute any more suggestions as to the Bacal

> > > script

> > > - except to say that my book is not a

> "Biography"

> > as

> > > you put it in your notes of our phone

> > conversation.

> > > It’s a memoir. (If it were a biography it would

> be

> > > an

> > > "autobiography," but it’s not a biography.)

> > Anyway,

> > > the credit, in the event that that becomes an

> > issue,

> > > should read, "Based on the book by Allan

> > > Weisbecker."

> > > That’s the way it always reads on the screen

> when

> > a

> > > movie is based on a book. They never put "novel"

> > or

> > > some such. Always "book." Just so you know.

> > >

> > > Two reasons for no more suggestions. The first

> is

> > > that

> > > I already made a bunch of them, most of which I

> > (in

> > > effect) repeated in our phone conversation. All

> of

> > > the

> > > suggestions were made in my critique of Stacy’s

> > > outline way back in 2003. My combativeness and

> > > sarcasm

> > > should not have prevented you from seeing that

> the

> > > outline was useless.

> > >

> > > That the [Other Writer’s] script is based on that same

> > > outline

> > > is obvious from start to finish. The absolute

> > > dumbest

> > > stuff from the outline was there in the

> > screenplay.

> > > (The bandit/credit card scene is one that comes

> to

> > > mind, but there are plenty more, such as having

> > the

> > > biggest turning point in the story - the break

> up

> > of

> > > the friends — related via DIALOG with someone

> > > irrelevant to the relationship (and that there

> was

> > > no

> > > CONFLICT involved in the break up)… christ, i

> > > truly

> > > could go on and on.)

> > >

> > > Since my suggestions were ignored before, they

> > > certainly will be again, so why bother?

> > >

> > > The second reason for no more suggestions is

> this:

> > > The

> > > way I see it going is that you’ll send out some

> > > version of the [Other Writer’s] script and no one will

> want

> > > to

> > > have anything to do with it, due to

> insurmountable

> > > story problems.

> > >

> > > Eventually it will occur to you (certainly not

> to

> > > [the Studio] and most certainly not to [the Studio]) that you

> > have

> > > had a "brilliant" (your words) script all the

> time

> > -

> > > mine. You’ll (one way or another) get it out to

> > some

> > > people.

> > >

> > > In this manner the movie, a good movie, just

> might

> > > get

> > > made. That’s my fantasy, anyway. So if my

> helping

> > > make

> > > the [Other Writer’s] script more presentable resulted in

> it

> > > actually getting made, I will have fucked myself

> > up

> > > through the back door, so to speak.

> > >

> > > By the way, did you give the [Other Writer’s] script to

> > your

> > > writer friend/sounding board? I’m trying to

> > imagine

> > > his reaction. [The guy who called me “the real thing” way back when]

> > >

> > > Thanks for sending [her new film]. It was

> terrific,

> > > better than [Other film]. Good work. [the joke here is that the other film was all archival footage too – the Director STILL had not directed anything!]

> > >

> > > Allan

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > __________________________________

> > > Do you Yahoo!?

> > > Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources

> > site!

> > > http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

>

Date:Tue, 1 Nov 2005 08:43:50 -0800 (PST)

From:"Allan Weisbecker" <acwdownsouth@yahoo.com> View Contact

Details Add Mobile Alert

Subject: zero

To: [the Procucer]: XXXX@XXXXX.com

i keep getting emails like this one. how are reactions

going to the [other writer’s] version?

allan

Note: forwarded message attached.

__________________________________

Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors’ Choice 2005

http://mail.yahoo.comForwarded Message [ Download File | Save to Yahoo! Briefcase ]

To:acwdownsouth@yahoo.com

Subject:Mail From Your Website

From:support@aweisbecker.com

Date:Mon, 31 Oct 2005 12:09:42 -0800

Text Attachment [ Scan and Save to Computer | Save to Yahoo! Briefcase ]

Hi Allan,

hey, whats up? im a surfer from virginia beach, virginia. i was givin

the screen play for your book. and i read the whole thing and i couldn’t

put it down. it was so amazing. i have not had the chance to read the

book but i have heard many good things about it from friends at school.

and i just wanted to let you know that you are an amazing author. the

things you tell about in your story and the things you say are true.i

mean i could relate my own life experiences to some of the experiences in

the story. after i read the screen play i started thinking about a lot

of things and i realized that surfing is a perfect example of

friendship and the way people stay in touch. well i just think your a very

inspirational writer.

—————————–

Mike XXXXXX

surfvaXXXX@zoomshare.com

I received about 50 emails like the above about my version of the Zero screenplay. I was more or less just trying to annoy her by sending one.

This is to the new studio guy – he replaced the old one (who had written the memo extolling the director’s outline as “soulful” and “possessing all the elements.”

Date:Mon, 22 Mar 2004 06:36:18 -0800 (PST)

From:"Allan Weisbecker" <acwdownsouth@yahoo.com> View Contact

Details Add Mobile Alert

Subject: Captain Zero

To: XXXXX@TheStudiosite.com

XXX XXXXX

XXXXX Pictures

Via Email

Dear Mr. XXXXXX,

I believe we only spoke once, briefly by phone, soon

after you came to [the Studio]. In Search of Captain Zero was

already well along on its bumpy road.

Aside from creative differences, there were other

problems as well, mainly between myself and [The Producer]

and [the Director]. (Actually, at first there were no

creative differences between myself and [The Producer] –

when she read my second draft she said this: “It’s

brilliant. You’re my little genius. You gave [the Studio]

exactly what you said you would.” As far as [the Director]

goes, based on his “notes“ he may never have read any

of my drafts.)

You may be aware that I’ve posted my preferred

screenplay draft (a version of the one [the Director] thought was

brilliant) on my website (aweisbecker.com), along with

a note to readers asking for help in reaching Sean

Penn with the draft. I can understand how this might

be an annoyance to [the Studio]. I’ll give you the short

explanation of why I did this, then get to my real

point.

When [the Producer] first contacted me about optioning my

book I was wary. I’d never heard of her or [the Director]. Over my 25 years making a living writing for

the screen and TV I learned the hard way to be careful

with whom I get involved creatively. My feeling was

that bringing my book to the screen would be very

difficult, it being nonfiction with an internal drive;

real life is never dramatically structured. So I was

wary. [the Producer]’s promise of Sean Penn’s involvement as a

producer was the reason that I finally agreed to the

option. ([his first film] told me little about [the Director]’s

ability as a director, since he only shot the

interviews; the rest was archival.)

“Sean gets involved early in the script stage,” were

[the Director]’s exact words. I construed this as a promise that

Penn would read my drafts and have input. Of course it

is just that. A promise that Penn would see my work.

It never happened. Or if it did happen I was never

informed, which is just as bad.

You may think me naïve — people make and then break

promises all the time — but I get angry when I’m in

effect lied to, especially about something as vital as

this. Hence the posting of the screenplay on my site.

I was ready for abuse from my site subscribers, since

the screen adaptation strays so far from the book in

terms of turning points. Actually, there are no

turning points as such in the book. (I remember you

yourself pointed this out in our phone conversation.)

I was shocked and very pleased to get virtually all

raves. Out of over 50 “reviews”, all but one loved the

reinvented story — which, by the way, kept to the

spirit of the book as I intended it.

I’d be happy to send you the responses I got — they

are literate and well-thought out; more than a few are

from other writers and folks in the movie business. In

fact, one (I’m pasting it below) inspired me to go

back and do another pass at the script.

Which brings me to my point. I’m attaching my newest

version of Zero the screenplay. My hope is that

you’ll give it another look. Maybe also do what I do:

Ask someone you trust who has not been involved in the

project to read the draft and see what he/she says. I

don’t know about you, but I often lose perspective

after being immersed in a project for a long time.

I consider the attached Zero draft to be one of my

best screenwriting efforts. Maybe the best. The story

moves me, and it moves virtually everyone else who has

read it.

Again, please give it another shot. If you need a

release to read it, I’d be glad to sign it – [the Producer]

refused a read for this reason. She didn’t suggest a

release. (You can consider this email as a release. I

owed you a polish anyway.)

Yours truly,

Allan

==================================================

Here’s a copy of the e-mail I referred to above:

==================================================

Hi Allan,

Just finished your script. I loved it. It wasn’t

cheesy, in fact it was quite gritty as it should be.

At many times chaotic. If you want a critique, I

would change minor things. Little bits of dialogue

here and there, certain words. Nothing major. Just

nitpicking. I sure hope it gets made. I’d pay to see

it. Hell, I’d pay for me AND my group of friends.

The major part… is what happened to me while I was

reading it. A little backstory: I’m the kind of guy

who has seen my friends commit suicide; has seen my

neighbors dad (who was like a father to me) on a slab

at the hospital, his face blue with heart attack

death; has been dumped by someone he loves… but I

don’t cry.

When I was ending your script (last 20 pages), I was

listening to ‘One Thing’ by Finger Eleven and ‘I Am

The Highway’ by Audioslave. Those two songs, hit

perfectly as a soundtrack. As soon as Alex made his

heart beat after being attacked by the mammoth wave,

something welled in my throat. Something I hadn’t

felt for years.

I bawled for a good twenty minutes after reading END.

I just cried. Except it wasn’t one of those, my heart

is breaking cries, it was more…. I dunno…. joyous,

perhaps? The kind that comes after you read a

book, or see a movie, or hear certain lyrics in a song

and everything impacts you on a deeper level you

didn’t know existed… or had hidden. The kind where

everything in the murky, colorless depths swirls to

the surface and rolls over you like a colossal wave.

And then the moment where you cry is right at the end

when you realize… you’re alive.

It’s thankful.

I don’t know if you intended this or not, but I kept

looking at the contrast of the purity of the wave and

the helter-skelter of being on land. Then somewhere

along the way I realized that the wave IS chaotic, or

disguises itself to be. But it’s that one section,

that one moment inside of it where the masks are off,

and all the bullshit that you’ve fronted your whole

life is trashed and it’s just you and the wave. Like

two friends who have finally become real with each

other. It’s a perfect moment that does last forever!

I guess even in the water, the same works on land.

Those moments…

Once again, thanks for your contribution to the

surfing community… and my life. Hah! I’m sure this

is just one of the many similar letters you receive,

however I wanted you to know. Hope to see ‘In Search

of Captain Zero’ on a marquee soon.

If I meet Sean Penn soon, I’ll be sure to keep a copy

of your script handy!

Robert.

Right. I was attempting to annoy him too, since I knew that no one was going to pay attention to me in any case, or to “civilians” who liked my screenplay.

Check it out via the right side nav bar. See what you think.

=======================================

From a cut chapter:

Then, along with the daily love letters and emails she started sending me transcripts of conversations, or supposed conversations, with her Ala-non buddies, multi-page, dialog-heavy scenes written in basic screenplay format (I noticed that Lisa tends to overwrite stage direction, put in stuff that couldn’t make it to the screen), fervent expressions of sympathy for poor Lisa’s plight as victim of a drug and alcohol-deranged mind, mine, along with horrific anecdotes from folks who actually had been such victims, to which Lisa lent her own knowing, compassionate ear. Here’s a little excerpt from one, from an email dated October 11, 2004:

Following is a transcript of a conversation I had with “F” after the close of an AA meeting… I have gone to Al-Anon meetings for seven days straight. At the start of the meeting I introduce myself.  “Hi, my name is Lisa (all, in unison, “Hi Lisa”). 

In case you missed the subtext of the above opening: Lisa had been to at least one AA meeting, since she knows the beginning ritual. I think this was her point here.

“I’m visiting from Costa Rica for a few weeks and I’m trying to get to every Al-Anon meeting I can while I’m here.  I live with a man who’s an addict and alcoholic and also the child of an alcoholic.  I’ve been going to Al-Anon to help me get a handle on things, both his problems and the way I react to them.  I’d like to sit in and listen to your meeting today, and thanks for having me.”

A reminder to maybe put in perspective Lisa’s dedication to helping me with my addictions: Through it all, she never stopped offering me a sundown drink (a choice of rum or Chilean red wine), or refilling my glass, or buying me codeine on her solo Golfito runs. Also: That when Lisa herself drinks she’s apt to engage in “dumb and out of control” behaviors like promiscuity (which she admitted to in one of her blurts) somehow did not find its way into any of her AA scenes.

During (the) response period, a man who I’ll identify as “F” (“Hi, my name is F____ and I’m an alcoholic”…others introduce themselves as an “addict and an alcoholic”)

Lisa has already used words “addict” or “alcoholic” nine times in setting up her scene, her little nonfiction scene, which purports to explain the root of my delusions. Possibly her background in perception management is evidenced here.

I approached F after the meeting because what he said resonated with me.

Me:      Hi, F?  My boyfriend is always thinking that I’m going to go off with another man, and he can’t let go of our past problems.

F:         You’re just like my girlfriend.  I was exactly the same way.  That’s why she’s not my girlfriend anymore, for 2 months now.

Me:      I used to think it was a problem with him or our relationship but now I realize that it’s the alcohol and these other chemicals he pumps into his system that cloud his thinking, it’s like he can’t think straight.

F:         That’s what the booze did to me.  I was worrying about things that weren’t there.

Me:      He imagines I go off with other men when he’s not looking.

F:         You sound exactly like my ex-girlfriend.  I drove her crazy, and she finally had to leave me, and I love her and I miss her but she said she can’t be with me.

Me:      I think 90% of our problem is the chemicals; he’s self-medicating himself out of depression. 

F:         That’s pretty common.

Me:      But now he’s mad at me because I reached out to my girlfriends.  He thinks I’ve “outed” him.

F:         Oh man, I did the same thing.  Exactly the same thing.

My critique of this scene, which is as clearly made up as any crapola Bob Woodwared ever concocted, is that the writing is too on-the-nose, i.e., it’s sledge-hammering, i.e., all text, no subtext. (Actually there is subtext: the subtext of the scene as written is that it’s made up.)

Writing advice, in the form of an observation: Lisa should have at least worked in some differences between my delusional behavior and “F”s (she has “F” use the word “exactly” three times in agreeing with whatever crapola she says about me), let the reader do some of the work in coming to the conclusion that I’m delusional. (What’s with this “F” shit anyway? People at AA meetings use their first names, not the initial of it: Maybe Lisa didn’t go to any AA meetings after all.)

As with every one of Lisa’s other gaslighting maneuvers, the modifier transparent comes to mind here.

Click here for the PDF (in case you'd like to print it out) or just read on below:

The current Bush administration discusses Iraq in starkly moralistic terms to further its goal of persuading a skeptical world that a preemptive and premeditated attack on Iraq could and should be supported as a "just war." The documents included in this briefing book reflect the realpolitik that determined this country's policies during the years when Iraq was actually employing chemical weapons. Actual rather than rhetorical opposition to such use was evidently not perceived to serve U.S. interests; instead, the Reagan administration did not deviate from its determination that Iraq was to serve as the instrument to prevent an Iranian victory. Chemical warfare was viewed as a potentially embarrassing public relations problem that complicated efforts to provide assistance. The Iraqi government's repressive internal policies, though well known to the U.S. government at the time, did not figure at all in the presidential directives that established U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. was concerned with its ability to project military force in the Middle East, and to keep the oil flowing.

Most of the information in this briefing book, in its broad outlines, has been available for years. Some of it was recorded in contemporaneous news reports; a few investigative reporters uncovered much more - especially after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. A particular debt is owed to the late representative Henry Gonzales (1916-2000), Democrat of Texas, whose staff extensively investigated U.S. policy toward Iraq during the 1980s and who would not be deterred from making information available to the public [Note 2]. Almost all of the primary documents included in this briefing book were obtained by the National Security Archive through the Freedom of Information Act and were published in 1995 [Note 3].

   http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html 

Overview

• Items sent from the U.S. during the Reagan and Bush Administrations that helped Iraq’s non-conventional weapons programs and that were shipped to known military industrial facilities include:

• Computers to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons;[59] machine tools and lasers to extend ballistic missile range;[60] graphics terminals to design and analyze rockets;[61] West Nile Fever virus, a known potential BW agent, sent by the U.S. government’s Centers for Disease Control (CDC);[62] the agents for botulism, tetnus, and anthrax.[63]

Al shifa

http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/sudan.html

     http://www.counterpunch.org/gorman10182003.html

That said, I find myself, for the most part, enjoying Al Franken's confrontations with the right. I keep in mind, however, Franken's description, in his book "Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat Idiot," of Bill Clinton as the greatest president of the 20th century. Franken's knee-jerk defense of Clinton is evident in the transcript of his appearance on the September 10 edition of "The Flipside" on CNN Financial News. A caller to the program challenged Franken's assertion that Bush lied to start a war, whereas Clinton lied about "small things," supposedly a reference to the Lewinsky scandal. The caller pointed out that Clinton lied about the production of chemical weapons agents at a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory. The cruise-missile bombing of this factory in 1998 led to the deaths of untold thousands in that impoverished nation, as the sole source for the production of medicine was eliminated. "I think that's a little bit more serious a lie than lying about his sex life," argued the caller.

Franken responded, "OK. Well, that wasn't a lie. [Clinton] bombed a factory in Sudan. They had soil samples that had–that showed that this was a factory making a precursor to weapons of mass destruction. It was–al Qaeda was in the Sudan. This factory had been financed by al Qaeda. So you just got to get your facts straight. I mean this is–if you read 'The Age of Sacred Terror' by Daniel Benjamin and Steve Simon this is covered, chapter and verse."

Critical observers of the Clinton Administration's

    http://www.causes-of-terrorism.net/usviolence.htm  

Germany’s Ambassador to Sudan writes that “It is difficult to assess how many people in this poor African country died as a consequence of the destruction of the Al-Shifa factory, but several tens of thousands seems a reasonable guess” (Werner Daum, “Universalism and the West,” Harvard International

Review, Summer 2001).  After all, Al-Shifa “provided 50 percent of Sudan’s medicines, and its destruction has left the country with no supplies of chloroquine, the standard treatment for malaria” (Patrick Wintour, Observer, December 20, 1998).  Additionally, Al-Shifa was “the only one producing TB drugs-for more than 100,000 patients, at about 1 British pound a month.  Costlier imported versions are not an option for most of them-or for their husbands, wives and children, who will have been infected since.  Al-Shifa was also the only factory making veterinary drugs in this vast, mostly pastoralist, country.  Its specialty was drugs to kill the parasites which pass from herds to herders, one of Sudan's principal causes of infant mortality” (James Astill, Guardian, October 2, 2001). The bombing of the Al-Shifa plant also resulted in the mass exodus of Sudan’s international organizations.  Human Rights Watch observed that because of the bombing, “all UN agencies based in Khartoum have evacuated their American staff, as have many other relief organizations.”  Because of this “many relief efforts have been postponed indefinitely, including a crucial one run by the U.S.- based International Rescue Committee are dying daily.” Additionally, “the UN estimates that 2.4 million people are at risk of starvation,” and the “disruption in assistance” for the “devastated population” may produce a “terrible crisis.” Therefore, it is not so surprising that Osama Bin Laden’s popularity  rose after the Al-Shifa bombing.  This horrible incident, along with U.S. policy in Iraq in the past ten years, has devastated Iraq’s civilian population while strengthening Saddam Hussein.  The U.S. egregiously supported Hussein during his gassing of the Kurds in 1988 which provided Bin Laden with a way to defend his irrational hatred of the United States.  Perhaps the only way to counter the United States’ terrorism, is with terrorism of one’s own. If the United States is to continue its war on terrorism, it should perhaps aim its war not at Osama Bin Laden or Iraq (what many predict is next on the U.S.’s list), but rather at itself.  It is only by eradicating its status as the world’s leading terrorist state, that the U.S. can eradicate terrorism. PRINTABLE  PAGE  |   BACK   |   TOP   |    NEXT   |

   http://www.melanie-klein-trust.org.uk/chiesa1.htm Terrorism: Psycho-political observations on shock and indifference
Dr Marco Chiesa

'Murder at a distance removes the need for elaborate defensive mechanisms'
(Chomsky, 2001)

The September 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington were a crime against humanity, which sent waves of shock and horror due to their scale and the means by which they were executed. The reactions to the events have been amply shown in the media, and grief and horror of unprecedented force was displayed throughout most of the world. In this contribution I would like to discuss a contrasting phenomenon, namely indifference shown by political elites, media and general population to similar tragedies that occur to our fellow human being.

During the Gulf war part of the nearly 100,000 tons of bombs that rained over Iraq (the equivalent of five Hiroshima bombs) targeted water purification plants, irrigation systems and sewage treatment plants as well as electrical and other Iraqi civilian infrastructure, which were systematically destroyed. The combined effect of war and prolonged iron fist sanctions had disastrous effects on the civilian population of that Country. The spread of typhoid and other contaminated-water-borne diseases, coupled with the denial of food aids and medicines, has led to one of the biggest death tolls of civilians in any one Country in recent history. According to the recent Unicef report (1999) 500,000 preventable under-fives deaths occurred in the period 1991-1998. Those children died of treatable diseases and malnutrition. The incidence of birth malformations and children's cancers has increased by 3 and 4 times respectively as a likely consequence of the depleted uranium used in bombs, which found its way into the food chain (Fisk, 2000). More recent figures show that 4,000 children still die every month as a consequence of the continuing effects of economic sanctions, primarily a US/UK affair. Denis Halliday, one of the three respected UN diplomats in charge of humanitarian coordination for Iraq who have resigned in protest against sanctions, has called these sanctions “genocidal”.

The reaction to these appalling crimes was (and is) very different from those witnessed after the September 11 crimes, when an almost total universal condemnation was coupled with feelings of shock and devastation. By contrast the level of shock and anxiety in the West has been very low relative to the magnitude of the human tragedy involved in Iraq. Horror, grief, anger and despair have not been universal. While most of the media treated the known humanitarian catastrophe in a low-key fashion and let it drop rather quickly, the reaction of the political elites was to minimise or deny the extent of the tragedy. The latter found its most eloquent expression in Madeleine Albright's statement on national television that “the price [of 500.000 Iraqi children's death] is worth it”. When John Pilger invited Robin Cook, the then Foreign Secretary, to participate in one of the very few programmes dedicated to the suffering of the Iraqi people, he declined on grounds that it would not be desirable to be shown alongside dying children. A ten-year catastrophe of genocidal proportion has fallen into oblivion. No three minutes silence has ever been recorded in any institutions for the children of Iraq, or indeed no psychoanalytic contribution was sought or conference organised on understanding the psychological and social roots of the human disaster brought upon the Iraqi people. Now we are faced with the horrifying prospect of a renewed full-scale war against Iraq as part of the so-called ‘war on terrorism’, which will inflict further mortal blows to the Iraqi population.

A second dramatic example of this selective indifference, and there are several to choose from, is the destruction by US bombs in August 1998 of the major pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, one of the poorest countries in the world. The Al-Shifa factory produced 50% of the affordable medicinal requirements and 90% of anti-malarial and TB drugs in the entire country, as well as most of the veterinary drugs. It is estimated that thousands of people (although the precise total toll is unknown), of which a high proportion were children, died of treatable diseases as a consequence. This crime elicited no detectable response, and it is fair to assume that it did not enter into many people’s consciousness. The total toll of preventable deaths can only be an approximate estimate (carried out by the German Embassy in Khartoum and by a non-governmental organization based in Cairo) because Washington vetoed a formal UN inquiry into the affair. This is in great contrast with the huge effort put into assessing the extent of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo after the Balkan war. Incidentally, the US has always had a cavalier attitude towards UN initiatives, the most recent of which is its lack of endorsement of the International Criminal Court. This may be understandable in the light of a previous sentence passed in June 1986 by the International Court of Justice (the World Court) that condemned the US for ‘unlawful use of force’ in the terrorist war against Nicaragua, which killed some 30,000 people and left a country in ruins, and asked the US to pay substantial damages to Managua. The US dismissed the World Court deliberation and proceeded to escalate the war by increasing military aid to the Contras terrorist forces.

I would like to offer some theoretical explanations for the possible reasons behind such contrasting personal and societal reactions to terrible criminal acts that have led to thousands of innocent victims and left behind a horrifying trail of destruction and suffering. Why such universal reactions of outrage and condemnation in one case are matched by so muted responses or outright indifference in others? Why such a discrepancy?

When indifference is the main reaction to a catastrophe occurring to people who do not share our culture and race, and who do not belong to our political sphere of influence, I suggest that the differences felt between them and us are magnified to a point where these people become so alien that they tend to disappear altogether as human entities from our consciousness. They stop existing as human beings with whom we share a great deal of common ground. As a consequence our capacity to empathise with their sufferings and take in the nature of the crimes committed against them becomes partially obliterated. We can feel the full force of the impact of the many barbarically murdered on September 11, but the 5,000 estimated civilian casualties of recent aerial bombardments in Afghanistan hardly touch us. In this country we may become preoccupied by the possibility of biological warfare, but there may be little or no concern for some who have died such as the thousands who have died of starvation in refugee camps in Pakistan or in distant villages in Afghanistan: just a mention or a statistic to sacrifice on the altar of our war aims. The splitting and other schizoid operations at work in these circumstances lead to insulation and crimes that would elicit horror if they were committed against us or people similar to us, become mere footnotes to be quickly disposed when they are perpetrated by us or by people similar to us. Segal (1997) convincingly shows that inability and unwillingness to face guilt and responsibility for crimes is a central factor that mobilises manic mechanisms, a corollary of which is the “dehumanisation of the enemy…, making the enemy either a monster or an object beneath contempt”. I suggest that obliteration of the notion and perception of people’s suffering is at the root of indifference.

Over-identification with, and idealisation of, our prevalent culture and our political elite may be another important factor in the denial and indifference to the crimes we commit. If by definition, and without need of qualification, we are the 'civilised society' engaged in a war against 'evil' and possess ‘a strong sense of right and wrong’ (a fundamentalist position), then we cannot believe that we are in fact capable of committing crimes against humanity, an exclusive prerogative of the enemy of the day.

Mainstream media undoubtedly has an important role in influencing and sustaining psychological operations. Media and political elites are well aware of the power of images. Nobody will ever forget the shocking images of the airplanes guided into the twin towers and the resulting carnage, shown repeatedly, day after day, on our screens. By contrast how many images of dying children or grieving mothers in Iraq or in Sudan have been shown in the last ten years?

In the same way high-tech killings by automated modern warfare are presented in an aseptic and sanitised fashion. Media coverage reinforces denial and insulation that allows us to black out the notion that at the end of the 'high precision, laser guided' bombing there are human being in flesh and bones.

It is of great relief that many courageous people do not fall prey to such syndrome of indifference, even when a heavy personal price is paid, like the parents of Greg Rodriguez, a young man who died in the World Trade Centre carnage. They said: "We read enough of the news to sense that our government is heading in the direction of violent revenge, with the prospect of sons, daughters, parents, friends in distant lands dying, suffering, and nursing further grievances against us. It is not the way to go…not in our son's name." For these bereaved parents murder at a distance does not elicit defences, but is regarded as a crime.

References

Chomsky, N. (2001). Foreword, Vietnam Inc., P. J. Griffiths. London: Phaidon Press.
Fisk, N. (2000). The hidden war. In A. Arnove (Ed.), Iraq Under Siege: The Deadly Impact of Sanctions and War. London: Pluto Press.
Segal, H. (1997). From Hiroshima to the Gulf war and after: socio-political expressions of ambivalence. In J. Steiner (Ed.), Psychoanalysis, Literature and war (pp. 157-168). London: Routledge.
Unicef (1999). Results of the 1999 Iraq Child and Maternity Mortality Surveys : Unicef.
    http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html

U.S. Diplomatic and Commercial Relationships with Iraq, 1980 - 2 August 1990

Prepared by Nathaniel Hurd.
15 July 2000 (updated 12 December 2001 by Nathaniel Hurd and Glen Rangwala).

Before 1980

• Following the 1967 Arab-Israeli War Iraq severed diplomatic relations with the U.S. In late 1979 the State Department (SD) put Iraq on its list of States sponsoring groups categorized by the SD as "terrorist."[1]

1980

• The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) asserted in a report that Iraq has been ‘actively acquiring’ Chemical Weapons [CW] capacities since the mid-1970s.[2]

1982

• Despite intelligence reports that Iraq still sponsored groups on the SD's terrorist list, and "apparently without consulting Congress", the Reagan Administration removed Iraq from the State terrorism sponsorship list in 1982.[3] The removal made Iraq eligible for U.S. dual-use and military technology.[4]

1983

• A SD report concluded that Iraq continued to support groups on the SD’s terrorist list.[5]
• Iraq reportedly began using chemical weapons (CW) against Iranian troops in 1982, and significantly increased CW use in 1983. Reagan’s Secretary of State, George Shultz, said that reports of Iraq using CWs on Iranian military personnel "drifted in" at the year’s end.[6] A declassified CIA report, probably written in late 1987, notes Iraq's use of mustard gas in August 1983, giving further credence to the suggestion that the SD and/or National Security Council (NSC) was well aware of Iraq's use of CW at this time.[7]
• Analysts recognized that "civilian" helicopters can be weaponized in a matter of hours and selling a civilian kit can be a way of giving military aid under the guise of civilian assistance.[8] Shortly after removing Iraq from the terrorism sponsorship list, the Reagan administration approved the sale of 60 Hughes helicopters.[9] Later, and despite some objections from the National Security Council (NSC), the Secretaries of Commerce and State (George Baldridge and George Shultz) lobbied the NSC advisor into agreeing to the sale to Iraq of 10 Bell helicopters,[10] officially for crop spraying. See "1988" for note on Iraq using U.S. Helicopters to spray Kurds with chemical weapons.
• Later in the year the Reagan Administration secretly began to allow Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt to transfer to Iraq U.S. howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons.[11] Reagan personally asked Italy’s Prime Minister Guilio Andreotti to channel arms to Iraq.[12]

1984

• The SD announced on 6 March that, based on "available evidence," it "concluded" that Iraq used "lethal chemical weapons" (specifically mustard gas) in fresh fighting with Iran.[13] On 20 March, U.S. intelligence officials said that they had "what they believe to be incontrovertible evidence that Iraq has used nerve gas in its war with Iran and has almost finished extensive sites for mass-producing the lethal chemical warfare agent".[14]
• European-based doctors examined Iranian troops in March 1984 and confirmed exposure to mustard gas.[15] The UN sent expert missions to the battle region in March 1984, February/March 1986, April/May 1987, March/April 1988, July 1988 (twice), and mid-August 1988. These missions detailed and documented Iraq’s CW use.[16]
• According to the Washington Post, the CIA began in 1984 secretly to give Iraq intelligence that Iraq uses to "calibrate" its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. In August, the CIA establishes a direct Washington-Baghdad intelligence link, and for 18 months, starting in early 1985, the CIA provided Iraq with "data from sensitive U.S. satellite reconnaissance photography…to assist Iraqi bombing raids." The Post’s source said that this data was essential to Iraq’s war effort.[17]
• The United States re-established full diplomatic ties with Iraq on 26 November,[18] just over a year after Iraq’s first well-publicized CW use and only 8 months after the UN and U.S. reported that Iraq used CWs on Iranian troops.

1985

• In 1985 the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill to put Iraq back on the State terrorism sponsorship list.[19] After the bill’s passage, Shultz wrote to the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Howard Berman, cited the U.S.’ "diplomatic dialogue on this and other sensitive issues, " claimed that "Iraq has effectively distanced itself from international terrorism," and stated that if the U.S. found that Iraq supports groups practicing terrorism "we would promptly return Iraq to the list."[20] Rep. Berman dropped the bill and explicitly cited Shultz’s assurances.[21]
• Iraq’s Saad 16 General Establishment’s director wrote a letter to the Commerce Department (CD) detailing the activities in Saad’s 70 laboratories. These activities had the trademarks of ballistic missile development.[22]

1986

• The Defense Department’s (DOD) Under Secretary for Trade Security Policy, Stephen Bryen, informed the Commerce Department’s (CD) Assistant Secretary for Trade Administration in November that intelligence linked the Saad 16 research center with ballistic missile development.[23] Between 1985 and 1990, CD approved many computer sales to Iraq that go directly to Saad 16. CD approved over $1 million worth of computer equipment for sale to Saad 16 after Commerce received the above-mentioned November letter from DOD.[24] As of 1991 Saad 16 reportedly contained up to 40% U.S.-origin equipment.[25]

1988

• The CD approved exports in January and February to Iraq’s SCUD missile program’s procurement agency. These exports allowed Iraq to extend SCUD range far enough to hit allied soldiers in Saudi Arabia and Israeli civilians in Tel Aviv and Haifa.[26]
• On 23 March, London’s Financial Times and several other news organizations reported from Halabja, located in Iraqi Kurdistan, that several days prior Iraq used CWs on Halabja’s Kurds.[27]
• In May, two months after the Halabja assault, Peter Burleigh, Assistant Secretary of State in charge of northern Gulf affairs, encouraged U.S.-Iraqi corporate cooperation at a symposium hosted by the U.S.-Iraq Business Forum. The U.S.-Iraq Business Forum had strong (albeit unofficial) ties to the Iraqi government.[28]
• The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee sent a team to Turkey to speak to Iraqi Kurdish refugees and assess reports that Iraq "was using chemical weapons on its Kurdish population."[29] This report reaffirmed that between 1984 and 1988 "Iraq repeatedly and effectively used poison gas on Iran," the UN missions’ findings, and the chemical attack on Halabja that left an estimated 4,000 people dead.[30]
• Following the Halabja attack and Iraq’s August CW offensive against Iraqi Kurds, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed on 8 September the "Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988" the day after it is introduced.[31] The act cuts off from Iraq U.S. loans, military and non-military assistance, credits, credit guarantees, items subject to export controls, and U.S. imports of Iraqi oil.[32]
• Immediately after the bill’s passage the Reagan Administration announced its opposition to the bill,[33] and SD spokesman Charles Redman called the bill "premature".[34] The Administration works with House opponents to a House companion bill, and after numerous legislation compromises and end-of-session haggling, the Senate bill died "on the last day of the legislative session".[35]
• According to a 15 September news report, Reagan Administration officials stated that the U.S. intercepted Iraqi military communications marking Iraq’s CW attacks on Kurds.[36]
• U.S. intelligence reported in 1991 that the U.S. helicopters sold to Iraq in 1983 were used in 1988 to spray Kurds with chemicals.[37]
• "Reagan administration records show that between September and December 1988, 65 licenses were granted for dual-use technology exports. This averages out as an annual rate of 260 licenses, more than double the rate for January through August 1988."[38]
• A general note about the Security Council's reaction to Iraq's CW use. Between 1984 and the implementation of the ceasefire on 20 August 1988 the UN Security Council passed six resolutions directly or indirectly related to the "situation between Iran and Iraq." In 1984, Security Council Resolution (SCR) 552 "condemns [Iran's] recent attack on commercial ship en route to and from ports of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia"[39] but it did not pass a resolution on the Iran-Iraq War generally or the UN expert mission's chemical weapons March findings specifically. During all of 1985 the Security Council did not pass a resolution on the "situation between Iran and Iraq" or Iraq's chemical weapons use therein. Although the UN's expert mission concluded in March 1986 that Iraq used chemical weapons on Iranian troops,[40] SCR 582 (1986) symmetrically noted "that both the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq are parties to the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous and Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare signed at Geneva on 7 June 1925"[41] and "deplores…in particular the use of chemical weapons contrary to obligations under the 1925 Protocol".[42] Resolution 588 (1986) did not mention chemical weapons.[43] In 20 July 1987, SCR 598 again deplored "in particular the use chemical weapons contrary to obligations of the 1925 Protocol",[44] but does not elaborate. After considering the expert mission's 25 April 1988 report, the Security Council in Resolution 612 is "dismayed" by chemical weapons' continued use and "more intensive scale".[45] Furthermore, the Council "affirms the necessity that" both parties observe the 1925 Geneva Protocol, "condemns vigorously the continued use of chemical weapons" and "expects both sides to refrain from the future use of chemical weapons".[46] SCR 619 (1988) focused on implementing the United Nations Iran-Iraq Military Observer Group and did not mention chemical weapons.[47] After the ceasefire, the Security Council considered the reports of the expert missions from 20-25 July and 2-19 August 1988 and stated in SCR 620 that it is "deeply dismayed" by the "continued use of chemical weapons" and that "such use against Iranians has become more intense and frequent".[48] Despite identifying Iranians as more frequent chemical weapons targets, the Security Council did not condemn Iraq. Rather, the Security Council "condemns resolutely the use of chemical weapons in the conflict between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq"[49]. All of the subsequent four resolutions, passed between 1989-1990 and relevant to "the situation between Iran and Iraq," pertained to the United Nations Iran-Iraq Military Observer Group and as such omitted any reference to chemical weapons use.[50]

  The Security Council could only condemn Iraq by name for using chemical weapons through non-binding Presidential statements, over which permanent members of the Security Council do not have an individual veto. On 21 March 1986, the Security Council President, making a "declaration" and "speaking on behalf of the Security Council," stated that the Council members are "profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops…[and] the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons".[51] The US voted against the issuance of this statement, and the UK, Australia, France and Denmark abstained. However, the concurring votes of the other ten members of the Security Council ensured that this statement constituted the first criticism of Iraq by the Security Council. A similar Presidential statement was made on 14 May 1987, which noted that the Council was "deeply dismayed" about the CW use against Iranian forces and civilians.

1989

• In March, CIA director William Webster testified before Congress that Iraq was the largest CW producer in the world.[52]
• James Baker received an SD memo stating that Iraq was diligently developing chemical, biological, and new missiles, and that Baker was to "express our interest in broadening U.S.-Iraqi ties" to Iraqi Under-Secretary Hamdoon.[53]
• Although the CIA and the Bush Administration knew that Iraq’s Ministry of Industry and Military Industrialization (MIMI) "controlled entities were involved in Iraq's clandestine nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs and missile programs … the Bush administration [approved] dozens of export licenses that [allowed] United States and foreign firms to ship sophisticated U.S. dual-use equipment to MIMI-controlled weapons factories".[54]
• By October 1989, when all international banks had cut off loans to Iraq, President Bush signed National Security Directive (NSD) 26 mandating closer links with Iraq and $1 billion in agricultural loan guarantees. These guarantees freed for Iraq hard cash to continue to buy and develop WMDs, and are suspended only on 2 August 1990, the same day that Iraq invaded Kuwait. Richard Haass, then a National Security Council official, and Robert Kimmitt, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, also told the Commerce Department (CD) not to single Iraq out for dual-use technology restrictions.[55]
• When one American firm twice contacted the CD with concerns that their product could be used for nuclear weapons (NW) and ballistic missiles, the CD simply requested Iraqi written guarantees about civilian use, said that a license and review was unnecessary, and convinced the company that shipment was acceptable.[56]

1990

• From July 18 to 1 August (Iraq invaded Kuwait on 2 August) the Bush Administration approved $4.8 million in advanced technology product sales to Iraq. End-buyers included MIMI and Saad 16. Mimi was identified in 1988 as a facility for chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs. In 1989 Saad was linked to CW and NW development.[57]
• The Bush Administration approved $695,000 worth of advanced data transmission devices the day before Iraq invades Kuwait.[58]

Overview

• Items sent from the U.S. during the Reagan and Bush Administrations that helped Iraq’s non-conventional weapons programs and that were shipped to known military industrial facilities include:

• Computers to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons;[59] machine tools and lasers to extend ballistic missile range;[60] graphics terminals to design and analyze rockets;[61] West Nile Fever virus, a known potential BW agent, sent by the U.S. government’s Centers for Disease Control (CDC);[62] the agents for botulism, tetnus, and anthrax.[63]

Footnotes

[1] Mark Phythian, Arming Iraq: How the U.S. and Britain Secretly Built Saddam's War Machine, (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1997), p. 11.
[2] Phythian, pp. 73-74. Phythian cites Financial Times, 23 February 1983.
[3] Milt Freudenheim, Barbara Slavin and William C. Rhoden, "The World in Summary; Readjustments In the Mideast", New York Times, 28 February 1982.
[4] Phythian, p. 34.
[5] Bruce W. Jentleson, With Friends Like These: Reagan, Bush, and Saddam, 1982-1990, (New York: W.W. Norton, 1994), p. 52.
[6] Leonard A. Cole, The Eleventh Plague: The Politics of Biological and Chemical Warfare, (New York: W.H. Freeman, 1997), p. 87. Shultz's comment is from George P. Shultz, Turmoil and Triumph: My Years as Secretary of State, (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1993), p. 238, quoted in Jentleson, p. 48.
[7] "CW Use in Iran-Iraq War", declassified on 2 July 1996 and placed on the website of the Federation of American Scientists.
[8] Phythian, pp. 37-38.
[9] Phythian, p. 37.
[10] Phythian, p. 38. Phythian cites former NSC official Howard Teicher and Radley Gayle, Twin Pillars to Desert Storm: America's Flawed Vision in the Middle East from Nixon to Bush, (New York: William Morrow, 1993), p. 275.
[11]Phythian, p. 35. Phythian cites Murray Waas and Craig Unger, "In the Loop: Bush's Secret Mission," New Yorker, p. 70.
[12] Phythian, p. 36. Phythian cites Alan Friedman, Spider's Web: Bush, Saddam, Thatcher and the Decade of Deceit, (London: Faber, 1993), pp. 81-84.
[13] Cole, p. 243, n36. See Bernard Gwertzman, "U.S. Says Iraqis Used Poison Gas Against Iranians in Latest Battles," New York Times, (March 6, 1984) for State Department quote.
[14] Cole, p. 243, n36. See Seymour M. Hersh, "U.S. Aides Say Iraqis Made Use of a Nerve Gas," New York Times (March 30, 1984). Quotation marks are for Hersh's words.
[15] Jentleson, p. 76.
[16] Jentleson, p. 76.
[17] Bob Woodward, "CIA Aiding Iraq in Gulf War; Target Data From U.S. Satellites Supplied for Nearly 2 Years," Washington Post, 15 December 1986.
[18] Bernard Gwertzman, "U.S. Restores Full Ties With Iraq But Cites Neutrality in Gulf War," New York Times, 27 November 1984.
[19] Jentleson, p. 54.
[20] Jentleson, p. 54. Jentleson quotes from Letter from Secretary of State George Shultz to Congressman Howard L. Berman, 20 June 1985.
[21] Jentleson, p. 54.
[22] Prepared statement of Gary Milhollin, director, Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, before the Subcommittee on Technology and National Security of the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress, 23 April 1991. Cited in Committee on Government Operations, House, "Strengthening the Export Licensing System," 2 July 1991, para.11.
[23] Committee on Government Operations, House, "Strengthening the Export Licensing System," 2 July 1991, para.10.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Ibid, para.9.
[26] Prepared statement of Gary Milhollin, director, Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, before the Subcommittee on Technology and National Security of the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress, 23 April 1991. Cited in Committee on Government Operations, House, "Strengthening the Export Licensing System," 2 July 1991, para. 25.
[27] Andrew Gowers and Richard Johns, "Iraq Uses Chemical Bombs on Its Own Citizens, " The Financial Times, 23 March 1988.
[28] Jentleson, p. 84-85.
[29] Peter W. Galbraith and Christopher van Hollen, Jr., staff report to the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, Chemical Weapons Use in Kurdistan: Iraq's Final Offensive, October 1988, p. v.
[30] Galbraith and van Hollen, p. 30.
[31] Jentleson, p. 78.
[32] U.S. Senate, "Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988," 100th Congress, 2nd session, 8 September 1988.
[33] Jentleson, p. 78.
[34] Robert Pear, "U.S. Says It Monitored Iraqi Messages on Gas," New York Times, 15 September 1988.
[35] Jentleson, p. 78.
[36] Robert Pear, "U.S. Says It Monitored Iraqi Messages on Gas," New York Times, 15 September 1988.
[37] Henry Weinstein and William C. Rempel, "Big Help from U.S.; Technology was Sold with Approval — and Encouragement — from the Commerce Department but Often over Defense Officials' Objections," The Los Angeles Times, 13 February 1991.
[38] Jentleson, p. 88. Jentleson cites U.S. Department of Commerce, "Approved Licenses to Iraq, 1985-1990".
[39] S/Res/552, 1 June 1984, paragraph 4.
[40] Nick Ludington, "U.N. Says Iraq Used Poison Gas in War Against Iran," The Associated Press, 14 March 1986.
[41] S/Res/582, 24 February 1986, preamble.
[42] S/Res/552, 24 February 1986, para. 2.
[43] S/Res/588, 8 October 1986
[44] S/Res/598, 20 July 1987, preamble
[45] S/Res/612, 9 May 1988, preamble
[46] S/Res/612, 9 May 1988, para. 1-3
[47] S/Res/619, 9 August 1988
[48] S/Res/620, 26 August 1988, preamble
[49] S/Res/620, 26 August 1988, para. 1
[50] S/Res/631, 8 February 1989; S/Res/242, 29 September 1989; S/Res/251, 29 March 1990; S/Res/671, 27 September 1990; and S/Res/676, 28 November 1990
[51] S/17911 and Add. 1, 21 March 1986. Note that this is a "decision" and not a resolution.
[52] Jentleson, p. 106. Jentleson cites U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, "Chemical and Biological Weapons Threat: The Urgent Need for Remedies," Hearings, 101st Congress, 1st Session, 1 March 1989, pp. 27-45.
[53] Jentleson, p. 107. Jentleson cites and quotes State Department memorandum, "Meeting with Iraqi Under Secretary Hamdoon," 24 March 1989.
[54] Statement by Rep. Henry Gonzalez (D-Tex), "Details on Iraq's Procurement Network," 102nd Congress, 2nd session, 10 August 1992.
[55] Douglas Frantz and Murray Waas, "Bush Secret Effort Helped Iraq Build It's War Machine," Los Angeles Times, 23 February 1992.
[56] Jentleson, p. 110.
[57] Committee on Government Operations, House, "Strengthening the Export Licensing System" .
[58] Stuart Auerbach, "$1.5 Billion in U.S. Sales to Iraq", Washington Post, 11 March 1991.
[59] Sub-committee on Commerce, Consumer and Monetary Affairs of the House Committee on Government Operations, "Strengthening the Export Licensing System," 2 July 1991.
[60] Committee on Government Operations, House, "Strengthening the Export Licensing System", 2 July 1991, section "National Security vs. Export Promotion: Sales to Iraq," para. 16.
[61] Auerbach, "$1.5 Billion in U.S. Sales to Iraq".
[62] Committee on Government Operations, House, "Strengthening the Export Licensing System".
[63] Cole, p. 85. Cole cites U.S. Senate, a report by chairman Donald W. Riegle, Jr., and ranking member Alfonse M. D'Amato of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and Their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Persian Gulf War, May 25, 1994, pp. 39-41.
[64] Cole, p. 82. Cole cites Kenneth R. Timmerman, The Poison Gas Connection, (Los Angeles: Simon Wiesenthal Center, 1990) p. 46.
[65] Kenneth R. Timmerman, The Death Lobby: How the West Armed Iraq, (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1991), pp. 202 and 410 n5.
[66] Jentleson, p. 62, Jentleson cites U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs, "Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL)," Hearing, 102nd Congress, 1st Session, 9

U.S. knew re chemical weapons:

http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/960702/72566_01.htm

http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/made-in-the-usa-part-iii-us-government-agency-listings/2892/

 Made in the USA, Part III: US Government Agency Listings

By Jim Crogan

Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 12:00 am

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION (Atlanta, Georgia) 1984 to 1993 — The CDC shipped a number of "viruses, retroviruses, bacteria and fungi" to Iraq from "October 1, 1984 thru October 13, 1993," stated then-CDC director David Satcher in a 1995 letter to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. According to Satcher, CDC’s shipments to Iraq continued two years after the first Gulf War. However, he included no information regarding the post–Gulf War I shipments. The pre-war shipments included: 1985 — Three shipments of West Nile virus, two shipments of dengue-fever virus, one shipment of Yersinia pestis (non-virulent plague bacteria), one shipment of Bhania virus, one shipment of Hazara virus, one shipment of Kemerovo virus, one shipment of Langat virus, one shipment of Sandfly Fever/Naples virus, one shipment of Sandfly Fever/Sicilian virus, one shipment of Sindbis virus, one shipment of Tahyna virus, one shipment of Thogoto virus, five plague-infected mouse-tissue smears and a variety of antigens and antibodies.1985 — Three yeast cultures of candida1985 — Eight vials of antigens (substances that stimulate the production of antibodies) as well as antibodies for ricketts and typhus 1986 — Two vials of non-infectious botulinum toxoid1988 — A variety of teaching supplies and CDC procedures manuals1989 — A variety of enterococcus bacteria and one shipment of streptococcus bacteria (return to agency index)CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (Langley, Virginia)1982 — President Ronald Reagan signed a National Security Council directive ordering the agency to provide Iraq with intelligence-information advice and hardware. The order was enthusiastically carried out by then-CIA Director William Casey (see Bechtel), who supported the sale of cluster bombs to Iraq. CIA also assisted in the sale of non-U.S. weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. 1984 — Agency secretly provided Iraq with instructions on how to calibrate its mustard-gas attacks on Iranian troops.1986 — Agency authorized secret study documenting Iraqi use of chemical weapons. 1988 — CIA Director William Webster acknowledged to Congress that Iraq was the largest producer of chemical weapons in the worl.(return to agency index)DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE(Washington, D.C.)1983 to 1990 — Extended billions of dollars worth of loan guarantees to Iraq through the Agriculture Department’s Commodity Credit Corporation. Iraq used some of these funds to buy material, equipment and technology for its chemical-weapons and ballistic-missile programs. After Iraq defaulted on some its loan obligations, the federal government agreed, in 1995, to pay $400 million to BNL (an Italian bank) to settle claims. Iraq is liable for reimbursing the U.S. treasury, but repayment is considered unlikely.1992 — An Agriculture Department employee shredded documents describing department’s role in obtaining $5.5 billion in U.S. taxpayer-guaranteed loans to Iraq through BNL, an Italian bank. The shredding was witnessed by a Justice Department paralegal. (return to agency index)DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (Washington, D.C.)1985 to 1990 — Approved $1.5 billion worth of export licenses for shipments of goods with both military and civilian applications to Iraq. According to an Inspector General’s report, Commerce officials later tampered with export records to disguise shipments of equipment and technology used by the Iraqi military. Five records alterations pertained to the proposed shipment of more than $1 billion in trucks originally described as "designed for military use." 1988 — Department approved shipments of equipment to upgrade Iraq’s Scud-missile program.1992 — Commerce Department inspector general admitted to Congress that department officials altered 66 export licenses for Iraq. (return to agency index)DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (Arlington, Virginia)1982 — President Ronald Reagan ordered department to provide Iraq with intelligence information, advice and hardware. 1983 — Private citizen Donald Rumsfeld (currently the secretary of defense) was dispatched to Iraq as the personal envoy of President Reagan. Met with Saddam Hussein and pledged support for regime. Rumsfeld’s trip occurred as U.S. was receiving reports of chemical-weapons use by Iraq. Rumsfeld also carried with him a secret offer of help to Iraq from then-Israeli Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir. During both the Reagan administration and the first Bush administration (prior to the invasion of Kuwait), the department supported export licenses transferring weapons technology and weapons materials to Iraq.(return to agency index)DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Washington, D.C.)1982 — Department removed Iraq from list of countries sponsoring terrorism.1983 — Reagan Secretary of State George Shultz (See Bechtel) successfully lobbied Commerce Department to approve sale of helicopters to Iraq. State Department begins receiving reports of chemical-weapons use by Iraqi military. 1984 — Schultz persuaded Representative Howard Berman (D–Los Angeles) to drop his bill returning Iraq to list of countries sponsoring terrorism. 1984 — Diplomatic relations reestablished with Iraq.1986 — Reagan sent secret message to Saddam Hussein, advising him to step up his air war on Iran. Message delivered to Hussein through Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak by Vice President George Bush.1988 — At the U.N., Schultz downplayed Iraq’s use of chemical weapons on Kurds. 1989 — Department supplied visas for three Iraqi nuclear scientists to attend an international detonation conference in Portland, Oregon. This conference discussed nuclear-weapons technology and flyer-plate technology used to control the force and shape of implosive shock waves. 1989 — Secretary of State James Baker received memo informing him that Iraq was aggressively developing chemical-, biological- and new missile-weapons programs.1990 — Bush administration approved $4.8 million in sales of advanced technology to Iraq’s Ministry of Industry and Military Industrialization. MIMI was responsible for Iraq’s nuclear-, missile and chemical-weapons program. (return to agency index)NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL (Washington, D.C.)1983 to 1989 — During this period, the NSC, usually with the State Department, successfully lobbied the Commerce Department to approve sales to Iraq of military-related items and items with dual military and civilian use, such as heavy trucks, to Iraq. 1983 — Successfully lobbied the Commerce Department to approve the sale of 10 "civilian" Bell helicopters to Iraq in 1983. The helicopters were eventually modified and used in 1988 to spray poison gas on Iranians and possibly the Kurds. 1989 — President George Bush signed NSC Directive 26, which established closer ties to Baghdad and provided $1 billion in agricultural loans. (return to agency index)U.S. NUCLEAR WEAPONS LABORATORIES:LAWRENCE LIVERMORE (University of California, Livermore, California) LOS ALAMOS (University of California, Los Alamos, California)SANDIA (Sandia National Laboratories are government-owned but operated under contract by Lockheed Martin, which is based in Fort Worth, Texas) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (Washington, D.C.)U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (Washington, D.C.)1989, California — These three labs in conjunction with the U.S. Departments of Energy and Defense organized a quadrennial international detonation conference in Portland, Oregon. There, representatives from these nuclear labs presented information on nuclear-weapons-detonation technology and flyer-plate technology used to control the force and shape of implosive shock waves. Three Iraqi nuclear scientists attended this conference from the Al Qaqaa State Establishment. Al Qaqaa supplied bomb parts for Iraq’s nuclear-weapons testing. (return to agency index) ·Malasian ·Malaysian ·Mexican ·Middle Eastern ·Open Late ·Peruvian ·Pizzeria ·Recommended ·South American ·Southeast Asian ·Southern ·Spanish ·Steakhouse ·Sushi ·Thai ·Vegetarian Friendly ·Vietnamese ·Western Europe  http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB113/index.htm#2

Reagan administration officials interceded on behalf of José Bueso Rosa, a Honduran general who was heavily involved with the CIA's contra operations and faced trial for his role in a massive drug shipment to the United States. In 1984 Bueso and co-conspirators hatched a plan to assassinate Honduran President Roberto Suazo Córdoba; the plot was to be financed with a $40 million cocaine shipment to the United States, which the FBI intercepted in Florida.

Document 13
Declassified e-mail messages indicate that Oliver North led the behind-the-scenes effort to seek leniency for Bueso . The messages record the efforts of U.S. officials to "cabal quietly" to get Bueso off the hook, be it by "pardon, clemency, deportation, [or] reduced sentence." Eventually they succeeded in getting Bueso a short sentence in "Club Fed," a white collar prison in Florida.

Document 14 (See page 76 of Document 6, the Kerry Report)
The Kerry Committee report reviewed the case, and noted that the man Reagan officials aided was involved in a conspiracy that the Justice Department deemed the "most significant case of narco-terrorism yet discovered."

 http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB113/index.htm#2

(north and drug running and Noriega

panama canal treaty

Article VPrinciple of Non-InterventionEmployees of the Panama Canal Commission, their dependents and designated contractors of the Panama Canal Commission, who are nationals of the United States of America, shall respect the laws of the Republic of Panama and shall abstain from any activity incompatible with the spirit of this Treaty. Accordingly, they shall abstain from any political activity in the Republic of Panama as well as from any intervention in the internal affairs of the Republic of Panama. The United States of America shall take all measures within its authority to ensure that the provisions of this Article are fulfilled.

JANUARY 1988

Deciding that he has outlived his usefulness to the Contra cause, the Reagan Administration approves an indictment of Noriega on drug charges. By this time, U.S. Senate investigators had found that `the United States had received substantial information about criminal involvement of top Panamanian officials for nearly twenty years and done little to respond.'

APRIL 1989

The Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Communications, headed by Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, issues its 1,166-page report on drug corruption in Central America and the Caribbean. The subcommittee found that `there was substantial evidence of drug smuggling through the war zone on the part of individuals Contras, Contra suppliers, Contra pilots, mercenaries who worked with the Contras supporters throughout the region.' U.S. officials, the subcommittee said, `failed to address the drug issue for fear of jeopardizing the war efforts against Nicaragua.' The investigation also reveals that some `senior policy makers' believed that the use of drug money was `a perfect solution to the Contras' funding problems.'

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1998_cr/980507-l.htm

the above sums up U.S. involvement in drug trafficking by congress

L.A. Times

A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.” “Leaked Report Says German and US Firms Supplied Arms to Saddam: Baghdad's uncensored report to UN names Western companies alleged to have developed its weapons of mass destruction.”  Tony Paterson, The Independent (UK).  Wednesday, 18 December, 2002Archived at: http://www.shalomctr.org/node/100http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html 

excerpt:

 Analysts recognized that "civilian" helicopters can be weaponized in a matter of hours and selling a civilian kit can be a way of giving military aid under the guise of civilian assistance.[8] Shortly after removing Iraq from the terrorism sponsorship list, the Reagan administration approved the sale of 60 Hughes helicopters.[9] Later, and despite some objections from the National Security Council (NSC), the Secretaries of Commerce and State (George Baldridge and George Shultz) lobbied the NSC advisor into agreeing to the sale to Iraq of 10 Bell helicopters,[10] officially for crop spraying. See "1988" for note on Iraq using U.S. Helicopters to spray Kurds with chemical weapons. SUHARTO, EAST TIMOR, AND THE US: Indonesia’s tight relationship under Suharto with successive US presidents is fairly well known and needs little elaboration.  From the brutal Indonesian civil war of the mid 1960’s, through the repression of independence movements in Aceh and Western New Guinea (annexed by Suharto in 1969 under murky circumstances) , the invasion of East Timor and right up to the Clinton era, Suharto sought and used his status as a loyal US ally and anti-communist to bolster and arm his regime. However, what might be more disputed is US complicity in the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975.  For the undeniable smoking gun, see the George Washington University’s National Security Archive: (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/), in particular  East Timor Revisited: FORD, KISSINGER AND THE INDONESIAN INVASION, 1975-76, Ford and Kissinger Gave Green Light to Indonesia's Invasion of East Timor, 1975; New Documents Detail Conversations with Suharto.  National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 62   http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB62 An excerpt:  The New Evidence The Indonesian invasion of East Timor in December 1975 set the stage for the long, bloody, and disastrous occupation of the territory that ended only after an international peacekeeping force was introduced in 1999.  President Bill Clinton cut off military aid to Indonesia in September 1999—reversing a longstanding policy of military cooperation—but questions persist about U.S. responsibility for the 1975 invasion; in particular, the degree to which Washington actually condoned or supported the bloody military offensive.  Most recently, journalist Christopher Hitchens raised questions about the role of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in giving a green light to the invasion that has left perhaps 200,000 dead in the years since.  Two newly declassified documents from the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library, released to the National Security Archive, shed light on the Ford administration’s relationship with President Suharto of Indonesia during 1975. Of special importance is the record of Ford’s and Kissinger’s meeting with Suharto in early December 1975.  The document shows that Suharto began the invasion knowing that he had the full approval of the White House.  Both of these documents had been released in heavily excised form some years ago, but with Suharto now out of power, and following the collapse of Indonesian control over East Timor, the situation has changed enough that both documents have been released in their entirety. Other documents found among State Department records at the National Archives elucidate the inner workings of U.S. policy toward the Indonesian crisis during 1975 and 1976.  Besides confirming that Henry Kissinger and top advisers expected an eventual Indonesian takeover of East Timor, archival material shows that the Secretary of State fully understood that the invasion of East Timor involved the "illegal" use of U.S.-supplied military equipment because it was not used in self-defense as required by law.The discussion here continues in this vein and culminates in links to Memorandum of Conversation between Presidents Ford and Suharto, 5 July 1975, 12:40 p.m. - 2:00 p.m. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB62/doc1.pdf The Secretary's 8:00 a.m. Staff Meeting, Tuesday, August 12, 1975, Secret [excerpt], with cover memorandum on highlights of meeting attachedhttp://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB62/doc2.pdf President Carter’s authorization of arms sales to Indonesia: Summary at  http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles/Nevins_Carter.htm excerpt:Carter lauded and supported the brutal regime of the Shah of Iran until the bitter end, for example. In Nicaragua, his administration provided significant support to the hated Somoza dictatorship. And in El Salvador, he extended large amounts of military and economic aid to a country whose army was engaging in widespread massacres, even after the slaying of its Catholic archbishop, and four Americans–three Maryknoll nuns and one lay churchworker. In the case of Indonesia's illegal invasion and occupation of East Timor, Carter followed a similar path. In late 1977, when Indonesia was actually running out of military equipment, his administration authorized a dramatic increase in arms sales to Jakarta. And over the next several months, the Carter White House approved sales of fighter jets and ground-attack bombers to Indonesia's Suharto regime, whose military employed them in East Timor to bomb and napalm the population into submission.  SUHARTO, EAST TIMOR, AND THE US: Indonesia’s tight relationship under Suharto with successive US presidents is fairly well known and needs little elaboration.  From the brutal Indonesian civil war of the mid 1960’s, through the repression of independence movements in Aceh and Western New Guinea (annexed by Suharto in 1969 under murky circumstances) , the invasion of East Timor and right up to the Clinton era, Suharto sought and used his status as a loyal US ally and anti-communist to bolster and arm his regime. However, what might be more disputed is US complicity in the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975.  For the undeniable smoking gun, see the George Washington University’s National Security Archive: (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/), in particular  East Timor Revisited: FORD, KISSINGER AND THE INDONESIAN INVASION, 1975-76, Ford and Kissinger Gave Green Light to Indonesia's Invasion of East Timor, 1975; New Documents Detail Conversations with Suharto.  National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 62   http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB62 An excerpt:  The New Evidence The Indonesian invasion of East Timor in December 1975 set the stage for the long, bloody, and disastrous occupation of the territory that ended only after an international peacekeeping force was introduced in 1999.  President Bill Clinton cut off military aid to Indonesia in September 1999—reversing a longstanding policy of military cooperation—but questions persist about U.S. responsibility for the 1975 invasion; in particular, the degree to which Washington actually condoned or supported the bloody military offensive.  Most recently, journalist Christopher Hitchens raised questions about the role of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in giving a green light to the invasion that has left perhaps 200,000 dead in the years since.  Two newly declassified documents from the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library, released to the National Security Archive, shed light on the Ford administration’s relationship with President Suharto of Indonesia during 1975. Of special importance is the record of Ford’s and Kissinger’s meeting with Suharto in early December 1975.  The document shows that Suharto began the invasion knowing that he had the full approval of the White House.  Both of these documents had been released in heavily excised form some years ago, but with Suharto now out of power, and following the collapse of Indonesian control over East Timor, the situation has changed enough that both documents have been released in their entirety. Other documents found among State Department records at the National Archives elucidate the inner workings of U.S. policy toward the Indonesian crisis during 1975 and 1976.  Besides confirming that Henry Kissinger and top advisers expected an eventual Indonesian takeover of East Timor, archival material shows that the Secretary of State fully understood that the invasion of East Timor involved the "illegal" use of U.S.-supplied military equipment because it was not used in self-defense as required by law.The discussion here continues in this vein and culminates in links to Memorandum of Conversation between Presidents Ford and Suharto, 5 July 1975, 12:40 p.m. - 2:00 p.m. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB62/doc1.pdf The Secretary's 8:00 a.m. Staff Meeting, Tuesday, August 12, 1975, Secret [excerpt], with cover memorandum on highlights of meeting attachedhttp://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB62/doc2.pdf President Carter’s authorization of arms sales to Indonesia: Summary at  http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles/Nevins_Carter.htm excerpt:Carter lauded and supported the brutal regime of the Shah of Iran until the bitter end, for example. In Nicaragua, his administration provided significant support to the hated Somoza dictatorship. And in El Salvador, he extended large amounts of military and economic aid to a country whose army was engaging in widespread massacres, even after the slaying of its Catholic archbishop, and four Americans–three Maryknoll nuns and one lay churchworker. In the case of Indonesia's illegal invasion and occupation of East Timor, Carter followed a similar path. In late 1977, when Indonesia was actually running out of military equipment, his administration authorized a dramatic increase in arms sales to Jakarta. And over the next several months, the Carter White House approved sales of fighter jets and ground-attack bombers to Indonesia's Suharto regime, whose military employed them in East Timor to bomb and napalm the population into submission.  Other items of interest:Winter 1996 profile of Suharto in the Yale International Forum:http://www.yale.edu/iforum/Winter1996/Suharto_Win96.htm Arms Sales to Indonesia, 1975-1995: http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/indoarms.html An Article at the World Policy Center’s Arms Trade Resource Center notes the uninterrupted flow of US arms to Indonesia since the East Timor invasion, and Clinton’s willingness ( in March 1997) to continue the policy. Again, a long and detailed discussion for those interested. The article also contains a table detailing the 1.1 billion in arms sales to Indonesia over the period 1975-1995, with strong peaks in 1978 (Carter), 1986 (Reagan), and figures in the tens of millions every year from 1989-1995 (Bush I and Clinton).   Suharto in 1997: “A credit to Indonesia” – Paul Wolfowitz http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0102wolfowitz_body.html PDF attached, also at http://www.fpif.org/pdf/gac/0102wolfowitz.pdf Interesting piece from Foreign Policy in Focus, Feb 2001 discussing the continued US silence on East Timor as “Classic Bipartisan foreign policy”:

It mentions, among many other things, Paul Wolfowitz’s speaking to Congress in 1997: If that sounds like hyperbole, consider Wolfowitz’s recent public comments on Indonesia. As late as May 1997, he was telling Congress that “any balanced judgment of the situation in Indonesia today, including the very important and sensitive issue of human rights, needs to take account of the significant progress that Indonesia has already made and needs to acknowledge that much of this progress has to be credited to the strong and remarkable leadership of President Suharto.” See also Tom Shorrock’s piece at http://www.firstofthemonth.org/9_11/9_11_shorrock_asian.html That disclosure reveals much about Holbrooke, Wolfowitz and US policy in Asia. East Timor is a classic example of the bipartisan nature of US foreign policy during the Cold War - and the secrecy surrounding US military support for authoritarian leaders like president Suharto, who ruled Indonesia from the US-backed coup in 1965 until his downfall in 1998. There is an unbroken link from the Ford-Kissinger years, when the US backed Suharto's invasion of the former Portuguese territory, through the Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton eras, when US policy focused on supporting Suharto's military and burnishing his image to the world. During the Reagan years, there was no greater champion of Suharto than Wolfowitz, whose career is a textbook example of Cold War politics that focused for nearly 50 years on the care and feeding of dictators like Suharto, Chun Doo-hwan in South Korea, and Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines. While there were differences in nuance between Democratic and Republican presidents, these policies remained remarkably consistent from administration to administration. Where Wolfowitz and the Reagan Republicans departed from the Democrats was in their public stance toward these unsavory figures.  Suharto and Clinton In May 1993, Clinton placed Indonesia on a Human Rights Watch List for its actiopns in East Timor, (among other places, noted at http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/suharto.html and http://www.hrw.org/reports/1994/WR94/Asia-06.htm) but this didn’t stop Suharto being warmly received in Washington in October 1995.  The East Timor and Indonesia Action Network (ETAN) has copies of 1995 letters to Clinton by several prominent legislators protesting Suhato’s 1995 visit to the White house as well as an NY Times piece on the visit archived at:  http://www.etan.org/legislation/archive/95oct.htm Be aware, for what it’s worth, that it was not Clinton himself who called Suharto “Our Kind of Guy” but instead the ever-popular “Senior Administration official”.  This quote has also been attributed to Reagan.  Speaking of Reagan:Allegations of financial ties between the Clinton and Suharto regimes are well known, and L.J. Davis raised them in a 1997 article for Mother Jones Magazine: http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/1997/01/davis.htmlSuharto and Reagan Ronald Reagan’s posthumous profile at Allexperts.com has been scrubbed of previous references to Reagan’s relationship with Suharto, and notes in passing “that Reagan-era papers which might provide further details [of the Iran-Contra affair] were originally scheduled to be released starting in 2001, but President George W. Bush enacted a rule change to allow many of these to be withheld indefinitely”. Of course, the cached version is still available, at  http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:MbTUinhUZeAJ:experts.about.com/e/r/ro/Ronald_Reagan.htm+reagan+suharto+friend&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=10 or better yet, http://tinyurl.com/gt3n4 it quotes East Timorese Nobel Peace Prize recipient Jose Ramos-Horta:

"Reagan, like Carter, ignored the rights of black South Africans who languished under a system of institutionalized terrorism and racism; the widespread and systematic use of torture in Chile and Guatemala. They not only ignored, but actively supported the mass murder of Timorese women, men, and children, orchestrated by their friend and ally, General Suharto of Indonesia. Under Carter, there were crocodile tears for the oppressed; under Reagan, there hasn't even been pretence of concern for those in Timor, Chile, Paraguay, South Africa." (Funu: The Unfinished Saga of East Timor, 87)

Reagan responsible for massacres: Timor rights groups

 A news item reported after Reagan’s death. Sydney Morning Herald, June 6, 2004 - 5:43PMhttp://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/06/1086460167973.html It’s a longish piece, but the key quote is, “Despite pleas from human rights groups, Reagan - who visited Indonesia at the height of the bloodshed in 1986 - refused to ban the use of US-supplied arms in East Timor.” A largely similar article appeared on aljazeera.net, and can be found at http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/1869.cfm

Then try "petard" and see where "hoisted by one’s own petard" originated. Give you a hint: the guy who(probably) used it first wrote some plays. Another hint: My father once scoffed at this guy’s work, saying, "He just strings together a bunch of quotes we’ve heard before."

My father had a dry wit. 

Note to my demented editor: Hi!

Below are some rules for hyphens (or dashes) but it must be said that  there is a trend away from hyphens except when it changes the semantics of the  sentence (see the wikipedia entry, the second one below, very informative) as in  man eating shark (a man eating a shark for din din) and a man-eating shark—the  two words are hyphenated to indicate a compound modifier, that is to say, the  shark is a man-eater. So to answer your questions about the flesh and blood  bit—sadly there are no hard and fast rules for the dashing dash as used by her—I would not have put the dashes in flesh and blood, except, as I have said,  if I were saying, for examp, to me, she was like a real flesh-and-blood sister.  Compound modifier of sister. But if you read the experts on the uses of dashes,  be they ens or ems or hard hyphens, you will find that they do not strictly  agree, and that the “rules” such as they are have evolved. I support your  demented-editor drift, although the singular, none possessive use of editor  does make the meaning clear. But yes, I do think that, given that you yourself  are not william safire or a teacher of english, you only open a path for someone  to start busting you on YOUR grammar and punctuation, no doubt gleefully. You  will be hoist by your own petard.  I have said it once, and I will say it again: be very careful with your  pronouncements on writing, and definately on grammar (and since I found out you  didn’t know your imply from your infer, I would not get uppity about usage  either). So just don’t talk about rules, or even correct english; you could  say the PREFERRED english is….  English grammar is as vast and complicated and controversial  as discussions on the talmud. Which is why a publication or a pub  house (my publishers for example, who want everything to be consistent  throughout the whole range of travel books) will have a style sheet that  the author will adhere to. Strunk and White’s is considered the standard for  american, but an English don from Oxford would feel compelled to edit the  hell out of that book, and write outraged notes in the margins. 

That said please see below, the university of texas’ style sheet on  hyphenating nouns. By their reckoning you would write will-o-the-wisp,  one-on-one, and yes, even flesh-and-blood could squeeze in, altho and is a  not preposition—showing direction, location, or time. These are hardworking, or  hard-working words, and and just kind of lies there.Plus it ain’t mentioned in  the list I found on the web: A prepositional  phrase (http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/writcent/hypergrammar/phrfunc.html#prepositional phrase)  is made up of the preposition, its object and any associated adjectives (http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/writcent/hypergrammar/adjectve.html#adjective)   or adverbs
(http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/writcent/hypergrammar/adverbs.html#adverb) . 

A prepositional phrase can function as a noun, an adjective, or an adverb. The  most common prepositions are “about,” “above,” “across,” “after,” “against,”  “along,” “among,” “around,” “at,” “before,” “behind,” “below,” “beneath,”  “beside,” “between,” “beyond,” “but,” “by,” “despite,” “down,” “during,”  “except,” “for,” “from,” “in,” “inside,” “into,” “like,” “near,” “of,” “off,”  “on,” “onto,” “out,” “outside,” “over,” “past,” “since,” “through,”  “throughout,” “till,” “to,” “toward,” “under,” “underneath,” “until,” “up,”  “upon,” “with,” “within,” and “without.” See that? No and. I feel that I have only confused you more, but this  is a grey territory, and one that has been mapped in many different ways, like  the old goldrush maps that people made up out of whole cloth—I’m thinking of  the poor old Donner Party who were in search of a non-existant short-cut on the  strength of a map drawn by a guy who’d never actually travelled it. Okay, let me  leave you to your reading. Oh, let me leave you with these quotes on the devil  dash from an article on writing for scientific journals:  “ The obvious purpose of grammatical rules is to facilitate clear  communication. When rules of grammar do not serve this purpose, they should  be disregarded’ Scientific English, by Robert Day ‘The hyphen has a number of uses, most of them  confusing’—Ibid  ‘One must regard the hyphen as a blemish to be avoided as far as  possible’ ….’you may run them together or leave them apart, except when  nature revolts’ .Winston Churchill ‘If you take the hyphen seriously, you will surely go mad’.  John Benbow (emphasis mine) This  is the texas thingee.

HYPHENS The  hyphen is used to link the parts of some compound words.  It also links the parts of a word begun  on one line and finished on the next.  Consult a dictionary if you are unsure about how to hyphenate any given  word.

1.    Use a hyphen to link the parts of  compound nouns that begin with the prefixes “ex-,” “self-,” “great-” or that end  with the suffix “–elect.” ex-partner                              self-esteem                           president-elect

2.    Use a hyphen to link the parts of  compound nouns that include a prepositional phrase.  son-in-law   man-of-war  jack-in-the-box

3.    Use a hyphen to link prefixes with  proper nouns or adjectives.  pro-American  post-impressionist NOTE:  Many compound words are not  hyphenated.  Some are two separate  words (tennis court), but some are written as a single word  (basketball).

4.    Use a hyphen to link the parts of a  compound adjective when it precedes the noun.  coal-mining equipment  grease-stained jeans NOTE:  Do not use a hyphen if the adjective  follows the noun or if the first modifier is an adverb ending in -ly  (quickly heated soup).

5.    Use a hyphen to link parts of a fraction  used as an adjective.  two-thirds empty one-half finished NOTE:  Omit the hyphen if the fraction is used  as a noun.  One half of the bus was empty.

6.    Use a hyphen to link the parts of a  compound number between twenty-one and ninety-nine.  forty-five seats                     thirty-four years

7.    Use a hyphen when a word is divided at  the end of a line.  Place a hyphen  between syllables only.  Do not  hyphenate a word if doing so would leave just one letter on either line.  If a word already contains a hyphen,  divide it only at the hyphen. Today many people are still interested in the trapper’s  indepen- dent life style. Everyone seems to be interested in electronic gadgetry and  state- of-the-art computers.

8.    Use hyphens to distinguish between two  words that are spelled similarly and might be confused.  m-e-e-t is not the same as m-e-a-t

9.    Use a hyphen to further clarity and  readability. re-cover (as opposed to  recover) de-escalate A compound modifier (also called a compound adjective) is an  adjectival or adverbial phrase of two or more words. According to modern writing  guides, compound modifiers require a hyphen between each word (not between the  phrase and the noun the phrase modifies). Hyphens help prevent confusion;  otherwise, a reader might interpret the words separately, rather than as a  phrase. One or more hyphens join the words into a single idea. [_edit_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Compound_modifier&action=edit&section=1) ]

Examples

• Long-term contract (not long term contract—a long  contract about a term) 
• Hard-fought battle  ∑ Better-educated individuals [_edit_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Compound_modifier&action=edit&section=2) ]

Exceptions:

• Do not use a hyphen following adverbs that end in “ly” (quickly  forgotten incident). 
• Do not use a hyphen following “very” (very elaborate presentation).  

Most phrases that need hyphens as compound modifiers should not by  hyphenated if they come after the noun they describe: a contract for a long  term. [_edit_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Compound_modifier&action=edit&section=3) ]

References
The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual, Addison-Wesley  Publishing Company, Inc. (1992)
Rules and customs of usage
A definitive collection of hyphen rules does not exist, as evidenced by the 
accepted convention that adjectives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjective)
of color are left  open, without a hyphen. Therefore, the writer or editor
should consult a manual of style
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manual_of_style)  or dictionary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary)   of his or her
preference, particularly for the country in which they are  writing. When dealing with complex words the issue of ease of reading should be  uppermost in the author’s mind.
∑ Except for noun-_noun_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun)  and
adverb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverb) -adjective compound modifiers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_modifier) ,  when a compound modifier appears before a term, the compound modifier  is generally hyphenated in order to prevent any possible misunderstanding,  such as twentieth-century invention, cold-hearted person, and  award-winning show. Without the hyphens, there is potential confusion  about whether “twentieth” applies to “century” or “invention”, and similar. 
∑ Hyphens are generally not used in noun-noun or adverb-adjective  compound modifiers when no such confusion is possible; for example: 
∑ government standards organization and department store  manager 
∑ wholly owned subsidiary and quickly moving vehicle  (because the adverbs end in a ly)
∑ Hyphenation is also common with adjective-noun compound modifiers but,  arguably, less generally. For example, real-world example and  left-handed catch. Where the adjective-noun phrase would be plural  standing alone it usually becomes singular and hyphenated when modifying  another noun. For example, four days becomes four-day week. 
∑ Two-word names of numbers less than one hundred are hyphenated. For  instance, the number 23 should be written twenty-three, and  123 should be written one hundred [and] twenty-three. (The  and is normally included in British, Australian and New Zealand English  but often omitted in American English.) 
∑ Hyphens are occasionally used to denote syllabification
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllabification) , as in  syl-lab-i-fi-ca-tion. Most American dictionaries use an interpunct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpunct) , sometimes  called a “middle dot” or “hyphenation point”, for this purpose, as in  syl·lab·i·fi·ca·tion. 
∑ Hyphens are sometimes used in English to denote syllable breaks,  particularly for prefixes, such as when a (repeated) vowel is pronounced on  its own rather than being silent or merged in a diphthong
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diphthong) , as in  ‘co-operate’ and ‘re-enlist’ or even ‘de-ice’ and
‘re-ink’, where some other  languages (and some English authorities) use a diaresis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaresis)  like this: ‘noël’ or  ‘coöperate’. 
∑ Some words are hyphenated in order to distinguish them from other
words  which would otherwise be homographs
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homograph) , such as “_recreation_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreation) “ (fun
or sport)  and “_re-creation_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re-creation) “ (in
forensics), or “predate” (what a predator
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predator)  does) and “pre-date”  (to be of an earlier calendar date
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_date) ). 
∑ If a word begins on one line of text and continues into the following line  a hyphen is usually inserted immediately before the split. Note that the  details of doing this properly are complex, language-dependent and interact with other typesetting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typesetting)  practices: see  justification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_(typesetting))   and hyphenation  algorithm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyphenation_algorithm) . 
∑ Some married couples compose a new surname
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surname)  (sometimes referred to  as a double-barrelled  name
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-barrelled_name) ) for their new family by combining their two surnames with a hyphen.  Jane Doe and John Smith might become Jane and John Smith-Doe, or Doe-Smith,  for instance. In some countries, however, only the woman hyphenates her birth  surname, appending her husband’s surname. 
∑ A hyphen may be used in quotations to imply the spelling of a word such as  “W-O-R-D spells word.” 
∑ Hyphens are used to connect numbers and words, whether numerals or written  out, as in 28-year-old woman (cf. twenty-eight-year-old woman) or 36-year  veteran, in forming adjectival phrases. This is particularly used when forming  adjectival phrases for weights and measures, such as “98-pound weakling” or  “320-foot wingspan.” However, the authorities of the metric system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI)   have declared that it not to be used for the weights and measures of the  metric system. Many other languages do not form such adjectival phrases, but  use phraseology that appears circumlocutory in comparison. As of yet, it has  not been resolved whether this is an affront to the English language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language) ,  which, though lacking a comparable global bureaucracy, might be said to have  some significance in the world today. 
∑ They are also used in spelled-out fractions, such as ‘two-thirds majority’  and ‘one-eighth portion’.
The use of the hyphen has, in general, been steadily declining, both in 
popular writing and in scholarly journals. Its use is almost always avoided by 
those who write for newspapers, for advertising
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising)  copy or for  labels on packaging since they are often more
concerned with visual cleanliness  than semantic clarity; the words are left with spaces. However, it is still used  in most (American) newspapers and magazines, thus people remain accustomed to  seeing and understanding its use. In other countries hyphens are dropped in  favour of connecting the two-word compounds.  Traditionally an en dash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_dash)  (‘–‘) replaces the  hyphen in hyphenated compounds if either of its constituent parts is either  already hyphenated or contains a space.
[_edit_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hyphen&action=edit&section=2) ]
Examples of usage
Some strong examples of semantic changes caused by the placement of  hyphens:
∑ disease causing poor nutrition, meaning a disease that causes poor  nutrition 
∑ disease-causing poor nutrition, meaning poor nutrition that causes  disease
∑ a man-eating shark is a carnivorous fish 
∑ a man eating shark is a male human in the active process of  consuming a shark, possibly as part of a shark fin soup
∑ New age-discrimination rules, meaning new rules regarding  discrimination according to age 
∑ New-age discrimination rules, meaning rules regarding  discrimination
(not necessarily according to age) consistent with (or against)  the _New Age_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Age)   movement Additional examples of proper use:
∑ text-only document or …document that is only in text 
∑ Detroit-based organization or …organization that is based in  Detroit
∑ state-of-the-art product or …product is state-of-the-art  (product is an advanced state does not contain hyphens) 
∑ board-certified strategy or …strategy that is certified by the  board
∑ thought-provoking argument or …argument that provokes  thought 
∑ time-sensitive error or …error that is sensitive to time 
∑ case-sensitive password or …password that is sensitive to  casing 
∑ government-issued photo ID or …photo ID that is issued by the  government (…is issued by the government does not contain hyphens) 
∑ light-absorbing material or …material that absorbs light 
∑ award-winning novel or …novel that won an award or multiple  awards
(but, more likely, …won an award with no hyphen) 
∑ web-based encyclopedia or …encyclopedia that is based on the  web 
∑ fun-loving person or …person that loves fun 
∑ how to wire-transfer funds or …how to transfer funds by wire  
∑ how to tax-plan or …how to plan for taxes 
∑ advertising-supported service or service that is supported by  advertising 
∑ Rudolph Giuliani (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolph_Giuliani)  is  an Italian-American (but see hyphenated  American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyphenated_American) ) 
∑ list of  China-related topics
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_China-related_topics)  …list of topics that are related to China 
∑ out-of-body  experience
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-body_experience)  
∑ near-death  experience
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience) 

Although not strictly a World Affairs subject, let’s get the distasteful matter of James Frey over with. To go to the original source of the truth about A Million Little Pieces:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0104061jamesfrey1.html

Now: Below is the link to the final upshot. As you’ll see if your duodenal area can take reading this shit (I’m talking queasy guts here), Frey STILL will not own up. He only admits to "taking some liberties" or whatever (while Random House agrees to cough up millions in refunds for publishing the lying slug’s crock of shit), something like that. I mean I can’t even bring myself to look again to get the quote right.

Again: You have the shitball motherfucker’s address, shoot it my way and I’ll send him some rum and painkillers…

Here’s the upshot.
(requires registering with the NYTimes online, which is free).

______________

The events of 9/11/01, as we are constantly reminded, "changed everything."

For another side of that allegation, here's some information you will not get via the mainstream media, and further evidence of Orwell's optimism (it's over an hour so please go to it when you have the time):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8677389869548020370

Here are some other films — maybe archive them to watch later, when you have the time and are in the mood to hear what CNN (let along FOX) will not tell you:

• BYU Professor Steven E Jones WTC Lecture at UVSC
• David Ray Griffin speaking in DC About the 911 Commission Report
• 911 Loose Change

Please bear with the format screw up below. I can't seem to correct it.

 Here's an essay worth reading:        John Pilger addresses Columbia University in New York        On 14 April 2006, the Heyman Center for the Humanities at Columbia       University in New York brought together John Pilger, Seymour Hersh, Robert       Fisk and Charles Glass for a discussion entitled 'Breaking the Silence:

      War, lies and empire'.

       Tne following is a transcript of John Pilger's address - 'War by Media':       "During the Cold War, a group of Russian journalists toured the United       States. On the final day of their visit, they were asked by their hosts       for their impressions. “I have to tell you,” said their spokesman, “that       we were astonished to find, after reading all the newspapers and watching       TV, that all the opinions on all the vital issues were, by and large, the       same. To get that result in our country, we imprison people, we tear out       their fingernails. Here, you don't have that. What's the secret? How do

      you do it?”

       What is the secret? It's a question now urgently asked of those whose job       is to keep the record straight: who in this country have extraordinary       constitutional freedom. I refer to journalists, of course, a small group       who hold privileged sway over the way we think, even the way we use

      language.

       I have been a journalist for more than 40 years. Although I am based in       London, I have worked all over the world, including the United States, and       I have reported America's wars. My experience is that what the Russian       journalists were referring to is censorship by omission, the product of a       parallel world of unspoken truth and public myths and lies: in other       words, censorship by journalism, which today has become war by journalism.               For me, this is the most virulent and powerful form of censorship,       fuelling an indoctrination that runs deep in western societies, deeper       than many journalists themselves understand or will admit to. Its power is       such that it can mean the difference between life and death for untold       numbers of people in faraway countries, like Iraq.         During the 1970s, I filmed secretly in Czechoslovakia, then a Stalinist       dictatorship. I interviewed members of the dissident group, Charter 77.       One of them, the novelist Zdener Urbanek, told me, “We are more fortunate       than you in the West, in one respect. We believe nothing of what we read       in the newspapers and watch on television, nothing of the official truth.       unlike you, we have learned to read between the lines of the media. unlike       you, we know that that real truth is always subversive.” By subversive, he       meant that truth comes from the ground up, almost never from the top down.       (Vandana Shiva has called this 'subjugated knowledge').       A venerable cliché is that truth is the first casualty in wartime. I       disagree. Journalism is the first casualty. The first American war I       reported was Vietnam. I went there from 1966 to the last day. When it was       all over, the magazine Encounter published an article by Robert Elegant,       another correspondent who covered Vietnam. “For the first time in modern       history,” he wrote, “the outcome of a war was determined not on the       battlefield but on the printed page and, above all, on the television       screen.” He was accusing journalists of losing the war by opposing it in

      their work.

       Robert Elegant's view became the received wisdom in America and still is.       This official truth has determined how every American war since Vietnam       has been reported. In Iraq, the “embedded” reporter was invented because       the generals believed the Robert Elegant thesis:  that critical reporting

      had “lost” Vietnam. How wrong they are.  

       On my first day as a young reporter in Saigon, I called on the bureaus of       the main newspapers and TV companies. I noticed most of them had a       gruesome photo gallery pinned on the wall — pictures of the bodies of       Vietnamese and American soldiers holding up severed ears and testicles. In       one office was a photograph of a man being tortured. Above the torturer's       head was a stick-on comic strip balloon with the words: “That'll teach you

      to talk to the press.”  

       None of these pictures had ever been published, or even put on the wire.       I asked why. The response was that "New York" would reject them, because       the readers would never accept them. Anyway, to publish them would be to       “sensationalise”; it would not be "objective" or "impartial". At first, I       accepted the apparent logic of this: that atrocities surely were       aberrations by definition. I, too, had grown up on John Wayne movies of       the "good war" against Germany and Japan, an ethical bath that had left us       westerners pure of soul and altruistic towards our fellow man and heroic.       We did not torture. We did not kill women and children. We were the

      permanent good guys.  

       However, this did not explain the so-called “free fire zones” that turned       entire provinces into places of slaughter: provinces like Quang Ngai,       where the My Lai massacre was only one of a number of unreported       massacres. It did not explain the helicopter “turkey shoots”. It did not       explain people dragged along dirt roads, roped from neck to neck, by jeeps       filled with doped and laughing GIs and why they kept human skulls       enscribed with the words, “One down, one million to go.”        The atrocities were not aberrations. The war itself was an atrocity. That       was the “big story” and it was seldom news. Yes, the tactics and       effectiveness of the military were questioned by reporters, but the word       "invasion" was almost never used.  The fiction of a well-intentioned,       blundering giant, stuck in an Asian quagmire, was promoted by most       journalists, incessantly. It was left to whistleblowers at home to tell       the subversive truth — those like Daniel Ellsberg, and mavericks like       Seymour Hersh with his extraordinary scoop of the My Lai massacre.  There       were 649 reporters in Vietnam at the time of  My Lai on March 16, 1968.

      Not one of them reported it.

       The invasion of Vietnam was deliberate and calculated, as were policies       and strategies that bordered on genocide and were designed to force       millions of people to abandon their homes. Experimental weapons were used       against civilians. Chemicals banned in the United States — Agent Orange       –  were used to change the genetic and environmental order in Vietnam.       All of this was rarely news at the time. The unspoken task of the reporter       in Vietnam, as it was in Korea, was, to normalise the unthinkable - to       quote Edward Herman's memorable phrase. And that has not changed.         In 1975, when the Vietnam war just over, I witnessed the full panorama of       what the American military machine had done, and I could barely believe my       eyes. In the north, it seemed as if I had stumbled on some great,       unrecorded natural disaster. On my office wall in London is a photograph I       took of a town in Vinh province that was once home to 10,000 people. The       photograph shows bomb craters and bomb craters, and bomb craters.

      Obliteration.

       The Hollywood movies that followed the war were an extension of the       journalism. The first was  The Deerhunter, whose director Michael Cimino       fabricated his own military service in Vietnam, and invented scenes of       Vietnamese playing Russian roulette with American prisoners. The message       was clear. America had suffered, America was stricken, American boys had       done their best. It was all the more pernicious because it was brilliantly       made and acted. I have to admit it remains the only time I have shouted

      out in protest, in a packed cinema.  

       This was followed by Apocalyse Now, whose writer, John Millius, invented a       sequence about the Vietcong cutting off the arms of children. More       oriental barbarity, more American angst, more purgative for the audience.       Then there was the Rambo series and the “missing in action” films that fed       the lie of Americans still imprisoned in Vietnam. Even Oliver Stone's       Platoon, which gave us glimpses of the Vietnamese as human beings,

      promoted the invader as victim.  

       Even the official truth, or the liberal version, that the “noble cause”       had failed in Vietnam, was a myth. From Kennedy to Ford, the American war       establishment had seen Vietnam as a threat, because it offered an       alternative model of development. The weaker the country, the greater the       threat of a good example to his region and beyond. By the time the last US       Marine had left the roof of the American embassy in Saigon, Vietnam was       economically and environmentally crushed and the threat had been

      extinguished.  

       In the acclaimed movie The Killing Fields, the story of a New York Times       reporter and his stringer in Cambodia, scenes that showed the Vietnamese       as liberators of Cambodia in 1979 were filmed, but never shown.       These showed Vietnamese soldiers as the liberators they were, handing out       food to the survivors of Pol Pot. To my knowledge, this censorship was       never reported. The cut version of The Killing Fields complied with the       official truth then dominant I the United States, especially in the       liberal press, such as the New York Times, the Washington Post and the New       York Review of Books. This set out to justify the crime of the Vietnam war       by dehumanising the Vietnamese communists and confusing them, in the

      public mind, with Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge.  

       In the post war period, the policy in Washington was revenge, a word that       officials used in private, but never publicly. Famous insider journalists,       like James Reston of the New York Times, embraced it and disguised it in       anti-Vietnamese disinformation. An economic embargo was imposed on Vietnam       and Cambodia. Supplies of milk were cut off to the children of Vietnam.       This barbaric assault on the very fabric of life in two of the most       stricken societies on earth was rarely reported in the United States.         During this time, I made a number of documentaries about Cambodia. The       first, in 1979, Year Zero: the Silent Death of Cambodia described the       American bombing that had provided a catalyst for the rise of Pol Pot and        showed the human effects of the embargo. Year Zero was broadcast in some       60 countries, but never in the United States. When I flew to Washington       and offered Year Zero to the national public broadcaster, PBS. I received       a curious reaction from PBS executives. They were shocked by the film, and       they also spoke admiringly of it, even though but I could see them       collectively shaking their heads. One of them finally said to me, “John,       we are disturbed that your film says the United States played such a       destructive  role in Cambodia, and we may have an issue of objectivity. So

      we have decided to call in a Journalistic Adjudicator.”

       “Journalistic Adjudicator” was straight out of Orwell. But it was real,       and PBS appointed one Richard Dudman, a reporter on the St. Louis       Post-Dispatch. Dudman was one of the few Westerners to have been invited       by Pol Pot to visit Cambodia. His dispatches reflected none of the       savagery then enveloping that country; he even praised his hosts. Not       surprisingly, he turned his thumb down on my film and Americans never saw       the film.  Months later, one of the PBS executives, told me, “These are       difficult days under Reagan. Your film would have given us problems.

      Sorry.”

       The lack of truth about what had really happened in South East Asia - the       media promoted myth of an honourable “blunder” into a “quagmire” and the       cover-up of the true scale of the slaughter –  allowed Ronald Reagan to       renew the same “noble cause” in Central America and rescue, as the       Reaganites saw it, America's lost prestige in the world. The target, once       again, was an impoverished nation without resources, whose threat, like       Vietnam, was in trying to establish a model of development different from       that of the corrupt, colonial dictatorships, backed by Washington. This       was Nicaragua: population three million, one of the poorest nations on

      earth.

       I reported the so-called Contra War from the Nicaraguan side; but it was       not a war.  Like all the attacks of the American superpower on small,       defenceless countries, it was about murder, bribery and “perception       management”. A CIA-armed and trained rabble known as the Contra would slip       across the border from Honduras and cut the throats of midwives, or blow       up schools and clinics. Reagan called them the equivalent of his nation's       Founding Fathers. The Iran-Contra scandal that followed produced some       excellent investigative reporting in he United States, yet when it was all       over, the overall impression was of a mildly embarrassed administration in       Washington, not the barbarity of its actions. Thanks to journalists,       Reagan emerged smiling and waving, “the great communicator”. According to       the American historian Greg Grandin (Empire's Workshop: Metropolitan       Books), 300,000 people in Nicaragua, Guatemala and El Salvador had paid

      with their lives.  

       Is Iraq different? Yes, there are many differences, but for journalists       there are haunting similarities of both Vietnam and Central America. The       "noble cause" of “bringing democracy to the Middle East”, the promotion of       a civil war and the killing of tens of thousands of invisible people. On       August 24 last year, a New York Times editorial declared: “If we had known       then what we know now, the invasion [of Iraq] would have been stopped by a       popular outcry.” This amazing admission was saying, in effect, that       journalists had betrayed the public by accepting and amplifying and       echoing the lies of Bush and Blair, instead of challenging and exposing       them. The result is a human disaster of epic proportions, for which       journalists in the so-called mainstream bear much of the responsibility;       and that includes responsibility for the lives lost and destroyed.       This is true not only in America. In Britain, where I live, the BBC -       which promotes itself as a nirvana of objectivity and impartiality and       truth - has blood on its corporate hands. There are two interesting       studies of the BBC's reporting. One of them, in the build-up to the       invasion, shows that the BBC gave just two per cent of its coverage of       Iraq to anti-war dissent. That was less than the anti-war coverage of all       the American networks. A second study by the respected journalism school       at University College in Cardiff shows that 90 per cent of the BBC's       references to weapons of mass destruction suggested that Saddam Hussein       actually possessed them and that, by clear implication, Bush and Blair

      were right.  

       We now know that the BBC and other British media were used by MI6, the       secret intelligence service. In what they called Operation Mass Appeal,       MI6 agents planted stories about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction,       such as weapons hidden in his palaces and in secret underground bunkers.       All of these stories were fakes. However, that is not the point. The point       is that the dark arts of MI6 were quite unnecessary, because a systematic

      media self-censorship produced the same result.

       Recently, the BBC's Director of News, Helen Boaden, was asked to explain       how one of her “embedded” reporters in Iraq could possibly describe the       aim of the Anglo-American invasion as “bring [ing] democracy and human       rights” to Iraq. She replied with  quotations from Tony Blair that this       was indeed the truth, as if Blair and the truth were in any way related.       This servility to state power is hotly denied, of course, but routine. It       is even called “objectivity”. This is the BBC's correspondent in       Washington, Matt Frei, shortly after the invasion of Iraq. “There is no       doubt,” he reported, "that the desire to bring good, to bring American       values to the rest of the world, and especially now in the Middle East …       is now increasingly tied up with military power".  Last year, he lauded       the architect of the invasion, Paul Wolfowitz, as "someone who believes       passionately in the power of democracy and grassroots development." This       is not unusual. On the third anniversary of the invasion, a BBC newsreader       described the invasion as a "miscalculation".  Not illegal. Not       unprovoked. Not based on lies. Not a crime as defined by the judegment at       Nuremberg. But a miscalculation. Thus, the unthinkable was normalised.       There is a new book out in Britain called “Guardians of Power”. The       authors are David Edwards and David Cromwell, who edit a remarkable       website called MediaLens. Their work is about the parallel worlds of       unspoken truths and official lies.  They have not bothered with soft       targets, like the Murdoch press. They concentrate on the liberal media,       which is proud of its objectivity and impartiality, its “balance” and       “professionalism”. They  studied the reporting of the invasions of Kosovo,       Afghanistan and Iraq and the current build-up to an invasion of Iran. What       they reveal is a pattern. In the British media, as in the United States,       as in Australia, rapacious western actions are reported as moral crusades,       or humanitarian interventions. At the very least, they are represented as       the management of an international crisis, rather than the cause of the       crisis. This truthful, bracing book has not been reviewed in a single       British newspaper, even though informed people have offered to write about

      it.  

       Now consider the treatment of Harold Pinter, Britain's greatest living       dramatist. In accepting the Nobel Prize in Literature last December,       Harold Pinter made an epic speech. He asked why “the systematic brutality,       the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent       thought” in Stalinist Russia were well known in the west while American       state crimes were merely “superficially recorded, let alone documented,       let alone acknowledged.” Across the world, he pointed out, the extinction       and suffering of countless human beings could be attributed to rampant       American power, “but you wouldn't know it”, he said. “it never happened.       Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening, it wasn't happening.       It didn't matter. It was of no interest.” For the BBC, Pinter's speech       never happened. Not a word of it was broadcast. It never happened.         Pinter's threat is that he tells a subversive truth. He makes the       connection between imperialism and fascism and he describes it as a battle       for history. I would add that it is also a battle for journalism. Language       has become a crucial battleground.  Noble words, like “democracy”,       "liberation", “freedom”, “reform” have been emptied of their true meaning       and refilled by the enemies of these concepts. Their counterfeits dominate        the news. "War on terror” is used incessantly, yet it is a false metaphor       that insults our intelligence. We are not at war. Instead, American,       British and Australian  troops are fighting insurrections in countries       where their invasions have caused mayhem and grief. And where are the       pictures of “our” atrocities? How many Americans and Britons know that, in       revenge for 3,000 innocent lives taken on September 11th, 2001, up to       20,000 innocent people have died in Afghanistan? How many know that the       equivalent of the population of a middle-sized American city have been

      killed in Iraq, most of them by American firepower?  

       It is too easy to blame everything on Bush, and to plead, as liberal       journalists do, that the “neo-cons” have hi-jacked America. Ask the Native       Americans how benign the system used to be. Or listen to Richard Nixon on       the Watergate tapes, talking about power and bombing. "You're so goddamned       concerned about the civilians," Nixon said to Kissinger, "and I don't give       a damn. I don't care …. I'd rather use the nuclear bomb … I just want       you to think big."  In the nuclear age, from Harry Truman to George W       Bush, there is no evidence that Nixon was unique.        The lies told about Iraq are no different from the lies that ignited the       Spanish-American war, that allowed the Vietnam and Korean wars to happen       and the Cold War to endure. They are no different from the myths of World       War Two that justified the atomic bombing of two Japanese cities. It is as       if we journalists are being constantly groomed to swallow the fables of       empire. Richard Falk at Princeton has described the process. We are       indocrinated to see foreign policy, he wrote, “through a self-righteous,       one-way moral/legal screen [with] positive images of western values and       innocence portrayed as threatened, validating a campaign of unrestricted

      violence.”

       In my career as a journalist, there has never been a war on terror but a       war of terror. Not long ago I walked down a leafy street in Jakarta,       Indonesia, where the former dictator General Suharto is living out his       life in luxury, having stolen from his people an estimated $10 billion. A       United Nations truth commission had just released a report, based on       official files, that credits Suharto with the deaths of 180,000 people in       East Timor. It says that the United States played a "primary role" in this       terror. Britain and Australia are named as accessories to this vast

      suffering.

       After I had filmed in East Timor in 1993, I interviewed Philip Liechty, a       former CIA officer who, at his embassy desk in Jakarta, had seen the       evidence of Suharto's horrors committed with American approval and       American arms. He told me that, when he retired, he had tried to alert the       media to East Timor.  “But there was no interest,” he said, echoing Harold       Pinter. And yet the deaths in East Timor are more than six times greater       than all the deaths caused by terrorist incidents throughout the world       over past 25 years, according to the State Department. The “mainstream”       deals with this by reporting humanity in terms of its worthy victims and       unworthy victims, its good tyrants and bad tyrants. The victims of       September 11, 2001, are worthy. The victims of East  Timor are unworthy.       Israeli victims are worthy; Palestinians are unworthy. Saddam Hussein was       once a good tyrant. Now he is a bad tyrant. Saddam must be envious of       Suharto, who has always been a good tyrant, an acceptable mass murderer.          In the 1960s, the New York Times greeted Suharto's blood-soaked seizure of       power in Indonesia as  "a gleam of light in Asia".  After Suharto had       killed off 180,000 East Timorese, Bill Clinton called him “our kind of       guy”. Margaret Thatcher offered similar unction, as did the Australian       prime ministers Bob Hawke and Paul Keating on a regular basis. The media

      both led and echoed this chorus.  

       If we journalists are ever to reclaim the honour of our craft, we need to       understand, at least, the historic task that great power assigns us. This       is to “soften-up” the public for rapacious attack on countries that are no       threat to us. We soften them up by de-humanising them, by writing about       "regime change" in Iran as if that country is an abstraction, not a human       society. Currently, journalists are softening up Iran, Syria and

      Venezuela.

       Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is likened to Hitler. That he has won nine       democratic elections and referenda — a world record — is of no interest.        A few weeks ago, Channel 4 News in Britain - regarded as a liberal news       service - carried a major item that might have been broadcast by the State       Department. The reporter, Jonathan Rugman, the Washington correspondent,       presented Chavez as a cartoon character, a sinister buffoon whose folksy       Latin way camouflaged a man “in danger of joining a rogue gallery of       dictators and despots - Washington's latest Latin nightmare.” In contrast,       Condaleeza Rice was afforded gravitas and Rumsfeld was allowed to call

      Chavez Hitler, unchallenged.  

       Indeed, almost everything in this travesty of journalism was viewed from       Washington, only fragments of it from the barrios of Venezuela, where       President Chavez enjoys 80 per cent popularity. In crude Soviet-flick       style, Chavez was shown with Saddam Hussein when this brief encounter only       had to do with OPEC and oil. According to the reporter, Venezuela under       Chavez was helping Iran develop nuclear weapons. No evidence was given for

      this absurdity.

       The softening-up of Venezuela is well advanced in the United States.       Ninety-five per cent of 100 media commentaries surveyed by the media watch       dog FAIR expressed hostility to Chavez. “Dictator”, “strongman”,       “demagogue” were the familiar buzz words, so that people reading and       watching had no idea that Venezuela was the only oil-producing country in       the world to use its oil revenue for the benefit of poor people. They       would have no idea of spectacular developments in health, education,       literacy. They would have no idea that Venezuela has no political jails -

      unlike the United States.

       So that if the Bush administration launches “Operation Balboa”, a mooted       plan to overthrow the Chavez government, who will care, because who will       know? For we shall only have the media version - another lousy demagogue       got what was coming to him. The poor of Venezuela, like the poor of       Nicaragua, like the poor of Vietnam and Cambodia, like the poor of       Fallujah, whose dreams and lives are of no interest, will be invisible in

      their grief — a triumph of censorship by journalism.

       What should journalists do? I mean, journalists who give a damn? They need       to act now. Governments fear good journalists. The reason the Pentagon       spends millions of dollars on PR, or “perception management” companies       that try to bend the news is because it fears truth tellers, just as       Stalinist governments feared them. There is no difference. Look back at       the great American journalists: Upton Sinclair, Edward R Murrow, Martha       Gellhorn, I. F.Stone, Seymour Hersh. All were mavericks. None embraced the       corporate world of journalism and its modern supplier: the media college.       It is said the internet is an alternative; and what is wonderful about the       rebellious spirits on the World Wide Web is that they often report as       journalists should. They are mavericks in the tradition of the great       muckrakers: those like the Irish journalist Claud Cockburn, who said:       "Never believe anything until it is officially denied."  But the internet       is still a kind of samidzat, an underground, and most of humanity does not       log on; just as most of humanity does not own a cell phone. And the right       to know ought to be universal.  That other great muckraker, Tom Paine,       warned that if the majority of the people were denied the truth and ideas       of truth, it was time to storm what he called the "Bastille of words".       That time is now."  

As I write on September 11 (2006), this page is only outlined. Most links are not yet active. This page will have continuing stuff on it. Take a look at it and if you’re interested maybe put it in Favorites so you can periodically come back. Subscribe to my site and I’ll periodically notify you about what’s up.

World Affairs
Since this link is the most important, I’ve archived it here as well as elsewhere. I’ll provide another link to my Cut Chapters and Passages on this subject.

Pavones Now A potentially interesting subject (certainly from my point of view). I’ll tell you what I know of the current doings at my former paradise at the end of the road at the bottom of Central America. Updates on Fowlie (and his attempt to recapture his former land holdings), the Moras, Logan the Nutcase, etc., plus the reactions of Pavones residents to my book.

I’ll ask folks who live there or go there to be spies for me, which is an amusing concept: this will make certain Pavones people nervous about visitors. Full blown paranoia may result!

Lisa Now I’ll fill you in on this potentially interesting subject — so interesting it merits its own link – and likewise ask people who know her or come to know her to keep me informed. I’ll remind folks who run into her to hum a few bars of “Girls Just Wanna Have Fun” and relay her reaction.

The Lies I’ve Told
Since this subject didn’t fit elsewhere, I’ll put it here. I’ll own up to the deceits I perpetrate in my book, explain why I perpetrated them, and how I live with myself in having perpetrated them.

Nonfiction
Related to the above section about the lies I’ve told, I’ll blab more on the nonfiction genre.

My Blog
I get to say more stuff.

Reader’s Forum
You get to say stuff, reply to other readers’ stuff, and get your stuff replied to. I’ll start some threads myself then it’s every man for himself. This should get wild and wooly. I hope so, anyway.

Recommended Reading
Aside from Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent, there are a bunch of other books about why the world is so fucked up that are worth reading. I’ll also recommend books that I’ve found just flat pleasurable to read.

Acknowledgements
People in my life who really have helped and supported me, as opposed to gaslighting me and in general being shitball motherfuckers.

By the way, here's the first review of CYGAWA:

http://16streets.com/Cant-You-Get-Along.htm