November 30, 2005

Chomsky vs Dershowitz

John F. Kennedy School of Government video debate between Noam Chomsky and Alan Dershowitz, Israel and Palestine after Disengagement (November 29, 2005).

The Harvard Crimson, Prominent Profs Spar Over Israel (November 30, 2005). An excerpt:
In response to Dershowitz's claim that his knowledge of the peace process--including the 2000 Camp David summit--was based on what President Clinton had told him "directly and personally," Chomsky said that his own arguments were based on written and accessible evidence.

"You can believe one of two things," Chomsky said. "The extensive published diplomatic record...or what Mr. Dershowitz says he heard from somebody."

November 29, 2005

Columbia Journalism Review Daily

...a real-time daily critique of journalism and a continuing discussion and analysis of where it is and where it's going.

Operating under the auspices of the Columbia Journalism Review, the country's premier media monitor, we focus on three areas: an ongoing critique of political journalism; an ongoing analysis of the larger forces -- political, economic, technological, social legal -- that affect press performance day in and day out; and a new emphasis on monitoring and critiquing the journalism of the business and financial press. We've labeled these three reports Politics, Behind the News and The Audit, and we update them daily -- sometimes hourly.

This site was born as Campaign Desk in 2004, with a mandate to monitor news coverage of the presidential election campaign, for which we were awarded honorable mention from the National Press Club for our distinguished contribution to online journalism. After the campaign, we broadened our mandate to critique all of purportedly serious journalism, and changed our name accordingly to CJR Daily.

Our newest addition to the site, The Audit, has come about thanks to funding from the Winokur Family Foundation and others. We live in a time when there is heightened competition among the business press -- think Bloomberg News, cable television ventures and the rapidly growing number of Web sites entirely devoted to business news -- just as business itself has become more complex and corporate scandals have led to mandated increases in disclosure. There is opportunity in that combination , but there is peril as well -- heightened deadline pressure combined with a greatly increased volume of news is not necessarily a recipe designed to produce quality. We'll be here to tell you when it does and when it doesn't.

Eventually, in the months to come we hope to take a closer critical look at other specialties, such as environmental journalism, science journalism and medical journalism.

Beyond that, working in concert with CJR, our parent, we're committed to examining the continuing tribulations of the trade itself -- one that is going through considerable turmoil of its own as it seeks to define and redefine itself. Many journalists to whom we talk, day in and day out, have the vague sense that calcified old forms and formats are failing them; the trick will be to find new frameworks up to the task at hand.

We'll be dissecting and deconstructing all of that in the days, weeks, and months to come, and we can't think of a topic more vital. So hang on for the ride. We hope you'll keep visiting both CJR Daily and CJR, which is published six times a year and at www.cjr.org (and please consider subscribing to CJR).

SleeplessInSudan.blogspot.com

Uncensored, direct from a dazed & confused aid worker in Darfur, Sudan

An aid worker diary from Darfur, Sudan: real stories, random observations and occasional rants on the lives of Darfur’s two million displaced people and the somewhat bewildered humanitarian agencies who are trying to help them. Sleepless in Sudan is just another website on just another violent conflict in Africa – but uncensored, direct and without the sugar-coating that the tightly controlled and highly politicized environment demands from the official sources.

The Language of Empire - Abu Ghraib and the American Media

by Lila Rajiva

[--]

The ancient myth of Prometheus connects a murdered contractor, the torture of prisoners, and the emergence of a new form of fascism in American.

The Language of Empire is a study of how and why the torture of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib was white-washed by the American media. Tracing the connections between such apparently unrelated incidents as the videotaped beheading of the American contractor Nicholas Berg and the massive siege and bombing of Fallujah—the Guernica of the 21st century—it builds a compelling case that the torture of Iraqi prisoners was not an aberration but systematic, rehearsed, and in line with the history and policies of the U.S. military.

It explains why American journalists and commentators ignored or defended what happened.

It shows that the torture was committed by Delta forces and Marines not just low-level reservists; that it was directed at innocent civilians, not terrorists.

Fuck Chris Matthews!!

'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for Nov. 23rd
Guests: Jim Gilmore, Paul Hackett, Amy Goodman, Frank Gaffney, Bob Shrum, Christopher Kennedy Lawford

MATTHEWS: Let‘s go to Amy Goodman. I wondered what your reaction would be to this staged withdrawal proposal that‘s out there?

AMY GOODMAN, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: My reaction is, people in this country are demanding that there be a change. President Bush is at an all-time low in approval ratings and he has got to do something right now. So they are responding to public pressure. The question is, how far up that public pressure will be amped. I don‘t think people can rely on the Democrats. In fact, Congressmember Murtha, who has very bravely spoken out -- many of the Democrats—Democratic leadership in the Senate and the House, are really keeping a distance from him. I think this is coming from grassroots pressure in this country. And—

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, Amy—

GOODMAN: -- for President Bush, it‘s coming from his Republican allies.

MATTHEWS: I just want to check you on this assertion. You said he has to. He‘s commander-in-chief. He‘s got three more years of his constitutional term as president. He controls the Congress. What does he have to do he doesn‘t think is right? If he thinks we need troops in there, as Frank says, for another year or two or five more years or until the end of his term, what‘s to stop him from keeping them there?

GOODMAN: Well, Chris, remember when President Bush was in China and he finished speaking and couldn‘t make it outside the door because it was locked? President Bush‘s problem is he doesn‘t have an exit strategy, whether when he‘s trying to leave the stage or with Iraq.

But it has been exposed in this country. And people—Republicans as well as Democrats—and that‘s what‘s key here, it‘s actually Republican allies who are terrified for their own jobs when they run in 2006, whether or not President Bush has a few years longer. He is getting a lot of pressure from the Republican leadership to come up with some kind of plan. Now, you have Vice President Cheney saying—and you‘ve got Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld saying they are going to stay the course, if not keep troops there, up the number. But you see how the American people are responding. And so they are shifting course. The question is, of course, will they be forced to pull out now, which is the only answer.

MATTHEWS: Okay. Great. I‘m looking for a period if not a comma here.

Let me go right now to Frank.

GAFFNEY: Or even a breath.

GOODMAN: That‘s an exclamation point, not a question mark.

MATTHEWS: Thank you for that. It‘s an interruption at least. Let me ask you about the president.

Where is the Iraq war headed next? by Seymour Hersh

[--]


A high-level Pentagon war planner told me, however, that he has seen scant indication that the President would authorize a significant pullout of American troops if he believed that it would impede the war against the insurgency. There are several proposals currently under review by the White House and the Pentagon; the most ambitious calls for American combat forces to be reduced from a hundred and fifty-five thousand troops to fewer than eighty thousand by next fall, with all American forces officially designated “combat” to be pulled out of the area by the summer of 2008. In terms of implementation, the planner said, “the drawdown plans that I’m familiar with are condition-based, event-driven, and not in a specific time frame”—that is, they depend on the ability of a new Iraqi government to defeat the insurgency. (A Pentagon spokesman said that the Administration had not made any decisions and had “no plan to leave, only a plan to complete the mission.”)

November 28, 2005

Sibel Edmonds

"...we fear that the designation of information as classified in some cases [brought forth by Sibel Edmonds] serves to protect the executive branch against embarrassing revelations and full accountability... Releasing declassified versions of these reports, or at least portions or summaries, would serve the public’s interest, increase transparency, promote effectiveness and efficiency at the FBI, and facilitate Congressional oversight."

U.S. Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Charles Grassley (R-IA) in a Letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft

*
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/28/politics/28cnd-scotus.html

Court Turns Down Case of F.B.I. Translator

By DAVID STOUT -
Published: November 28, 2005

WASHINGTON, Nov. 28 - The Supreme Court declined today to consider the case of a former F.B.I. translator who contends she was fired after accusing the bureau of ineptitude in the handling of intelligence related to terrorism.

The justices refused without comment to take the case of Sibel Edmonds, who was a contract linguist for the Federal Bureau of Investigation for about six months, translating material in Turkish, Persian and Azerbaijani, before she was dismissed on April 2, 2002.

Ms. Edmonds had complained repeatedly that bureau linguists produced slipshod and incomplete translations of important intelligence before and after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. She also accused a Turkish linguist in the bureau's Washington field office of blocking the translation of material involving acquaintances who had come under F.B.I. suspicion. She said, too, that the bureau had allowed diplomatic sensitivities to impede the translation of some intelligence.

The F.B.I. said Ms. Edmonds's allegations were incorrect and that she was disruptive.

Ms. Edmonds's accusations had caused great discomfort within the bureau. Justice Department officials had complained that allowing the suit to proceed could expose intelligence-gathering methods and disrupt diplomatic relations. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft invoked a rarely used power and declared that the case fell under the "state secret" privilege.

Mr. Ashcroft's declaration persuaded a federal district judge to dismiss Ms. Edmonds's suit in July 2004. The dismissal was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit last May, and today's rejection by the Supreme Court is apparently the last legal word in the matter.

But while it lasted, the episode was highly embarrassing to the bureau. A classified investigation by the Justice Department's inspector general's office concluded in 2004 that Ms. Edmonds's assertions "were at least a contributing factor" in her dismissal.

In addition to raising questions about the F.B.I.'s treatment of whistle-blowers, the Edmonds episode focused yet more attention on the bureau's handling of terrorism-related intelligence. The bureau had already been under fire for its handling of intelligence before and after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Intergalactic War

http://peacejournalism.com/ReadArticle.asp?ArticleID=6750

Hellyer went on to state: "The time has come to lift the veil of secrecy, and let the truth emerge, so there can be a real and informed debate, about one of the most important problems facing our planet today." Mr. Hellyer stated the Canadian people may be threatened with the consequences of war in outer space over our sovereign territory: "The United States military are preparing weapons which could be used against the aliens, and they could get us into an intergalactic war without us ever having any warning."

WATCH PAUL HELLYER'S SPEECH: http://www.jerrypippin.com/UFO_Files_toronto_exopolitics_symposium.htm

*

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/11/prweb314382.htm

Former Canadian Minister Of Defence Asks Canadian Parliament To Hold Hearings On Relations With Alien "Et" Civilizations

A former Canadian Minister of Defence has joined forces with three Non-governmental organizations to ask the Parliament of Canada to hold public hearings on with Alien “ET” Civilizations. Paul Hellyer, Canada’s Defence Minister from 1963-67 under Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Prime Minister Lester Pearson, publicly stated: "UFOs, are as real as the airplanes that fly over your head." Hellyer warned, "The United States military are preparing weapons which could be used against the aliens, and they could get us into an intergalactic war without us ever having any warning. Mr. Hellyer went on to say, "I'm so concerned about what the consequences might be of starting an intergalactic war, that I just think I had to say something." “Now is the time for open disclosure that there are ethical Extraterrestrial civilizations visiting Earth,” a spokesperson for the Non-Governmental Organizations stated. “Our Canadian government needs to openly address these important issues of the possible deployment of weapons in outer space and war plans against ethical Extraterrestrial societies.”

OTTAWA, CANADA (PRWEB) November 24, 2005 -- A former Canadian Minister of Defence and Deputy Prime Minister under Pierre Trudeau has joined forces with three Non-governmental organizations to ask the Parliament of Canada to hold public hearings on Exopolitics -- relations with “ETs.”

By “ETs,” Mr. Hellyer and these organizations mean ethical, advanced extraterrestrial civilizations that may now be visiting Earth.

On September 25, 2005, in a startling speech at the University of Toronto that caught the attention of mainstream newspapers and magazines, Paul Hellyer, Canada’s Defence Minister from 1963-67 under Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Prime Minister Lester Pearson, publicly stated: "UFOs, are as real as the airplanes that fly over your head."

November 27, 2005

Trojan Horse: The National Endowment for Democracy

by William Blum

How many Americans could identify the National Endowment for Democracy? An organization which often does exactly the opposite of what its name implies. The NED was set up in the early 1980s under President Reagan in the wake of all the negative revelations about the CIA in the second half of the 1970s. The latter was a remarkable period. Spurred by Watergate -- the Church committee of the Senate, the Pike committee of the House, and the Rockefeller Commission, created by the president, were all busy investigating the CIA. Seemingly every other day there was a new headline about the discovery of some awful thing, even criminal conduct, the CIA had been mixed up in for years. The Agency was getting an exceedingly bad name, and it was causing the powers-that-be much embarrassment.

November 26, 2005

Zapatistas: Intergalactic encounter

by Bastian Saturday, Nov. 26, 2005 at 8:52 AM

The Zapatistas from Chiapas, Mexico, announce their plans for a intergalactic encounter “from below and from the left”. Intergalactic because they struggle for “a world in which all worlds can fit”.

Last summer, the nature of the Zapatista struggle has changed. The Zapatistas are known as the “first post-modern revolutionaries”. They have struggled for the rights of ethnic minorities, women, homosexuals, transsexuals and the poor in Mexico.

During the past 22 years, the main achievements of the Zapatistas have been on the local level. Some 2000 communities in
Chiapas have organised in about thirty autonomous municipalities and 5 autonomous regions. The autonomous authorities on these three administrative levels “lead by obeying”.

De Zapatistas are opposed to a leading elite, against technocracy and to a revolutionary vanguard. Their alternative is a system in which all strategic decisions are made directly by the population. Leadership is not about the person, but about the position. When a autonomous administrator doesn’t fulfil his or her task according to the will of the people, he or she is immediately replaced by the people. Civil authorities fulfil their role for a year and after that period, they are replaced to prevent possible clientelism and corruption. Last year the Zapatistas published an assessment of their own achievements and fallacies:

http://www.eco.utexas.edu/Homepages/Faculty/Cleaver/leerunvideo.html

The Zapatistas oppose rigid ideology and dogmatism. They do not present a blueprint for revolution. This is reflected in the principle of “progressing by asking questions”. Progress is achieved little by little and after each small step, new questions are raised. This can be seen as a reaction to the grand theories like communism, capitalism and other ideologies that do not tolerate dissent.

Last summer, the Zapatista movement gained national relevance when it announced the creation of a national movement “from below and from the left”. This movement has to be horizontal and aimed at voluntary consensus. In the Sixth Declaration of the Lacandon Jungle, the Zapatistas explain how they see Chiapas, Mexico and the world:

http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/auto/selva6.html

In this document, known as “La Sexta”, the Zapatistas criticize neoliberal free trade and the Mexican three party-system. They do not see the difference between the leaders of the different parties. “Because we believe that a people which does not watch over its leaders is condemned to be enslaved, and we fought to be free, not to change masters every six years.”

The Zapatistas propose the creation of something “very otherly”. This summer they announced the creation of “the Other Campaign”. A very otherly campaign that does not want to take power, but tries to organise from below and from the left to create an alternative for the allegedly corrupt Mexican political system. At this point, some 900 Mexican organisations and 2000 individuals have joined the Other Campaign.

The Zapatistas played an important role during the emergence of the anti-globalist movement. Their call for a international alternative media network played an important role in the creation of the Indymedia network. Two intercontintal encounters in 1996 and 1997 in Zapatista territory were followed by numerous national, continental and intercontinental social fora.

This month, the Zapatistas have called for a intercontinental encounter with movements from the left and from below. All around the world, meetings will be organised to prepare for this encounter. During this period everybody can voice their support, advice or opposition to the shape and content of this encounter and of a international network to help “struggles and resistances for humanity and against neoliberalism throughout the world”. You can find the announcement here:

http://zaptranslations.blogspot.com/2005/11/ezln-2-communiques-new-website.html

From the small, colourful threads of local resistance, the Zapatistas aim to weave a grand tapestry of rebellion. Together.

There will be a website on which the preparations around the world will be coordinated.

http://zeztainternazional.ezln.org

will launched on November 30th. All organisations from below and from the left are called upon to organise local meetings. The Zapatistas, if invited, will try to send a delegation to listen to the discussions and to report on the preparatory meetings back home in Chiapas. If the period of consultation is finished within the coming seven months, the Zapatistas propose that the Intergaláctica will take place in july of 2006.

The Origins of the Overclass By Steve Kangas

“In 1999, a journalist who had written exposes of Richard Scaife was by all appearances murdered in the Oxford Centre of Pittsburgh, PA - the office complex of the foundation of his subject - Scaife. Richard Mellon Scaife is the heir of the Mellon fortune and a major funder of the Heritage Foundation and other right wing organizations, although, like the Coors family, Scaife also funds abortion and gay rights organizations. Shortly before his death in February 1999, Kangas catalogued the gruesome accomplishments of the CIA and issued a scathing indictment of their paymasters - the very elites who created the CNP!”

Goerge Bush Sr., former CIA director The wealthy have always used many methods to accumulate wealth, but it was not until the mid-1970s that these methods coalesced into a superbly organized, cohesive and efficient machine. After 1975, it became greater than the sum of its parts, a smooth flowing organization of advocacy groups, lobbyists, think tanks, conservative foundations, and PR firms that hurtled the richest 1 percent into the stratosphere.

The origins of this machine, interestingly enough, can be traced back to the CIA. This is not to say the machine is a formal CIA operation, complete with code name and signed documents. (Although such evidence may yet surface — and previously unthinkable domestic operations such as MK-ULTRA, CHAOS and MOCKINGBIRD show this to be a distinct possibility.) But what we do know already indicts the CIA strongly enough. Its principle creators were Irving Kristol, Paul Weyrich, William Simon, Richard Mellon Scaife, Frank Shakespeare, William F. Buckley, Jr., the Rockefeller family, and more. Almost all the machine's creators had CIA backgrounds.

Christopher Dickey

Award-winning author Christopher Dickey is the Paris Bureau Chief and Middle East Regional Editor for Newsweek Magazine. Previously he worked for The Washington Post as Cairo Bureau Chief and Central America Bureau Chief. Chris's Shadowland column, about counter-terrorism, espionage and the Middle East, appears weekly on Newsweek Online. For links to recent columns and articles, visit the archive.

November 25, 2005

"Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire"

By William Blum's latest book, (2004) -

It reads like a primer to his work and offers this election year nugget on the back cover:

"If I were president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United states in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize-very publicly and very sincerely-to all the widows and orphans, the impoverished ad tortured, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. Then I would announce to every corner of the world that America's global military interventions have come to an end. I would then inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the union but-oddly enough-a foreign country. Then I would reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims and repair the damage from the many American bombings, invasions, and sanctions. There would be more than enough money. One year's military budget in the United States is equal to more than $20,000 per hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born. That's one year. That's what I'd do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I'd be assassinated."

The Internet vs. the State

by Eric Garris

At the 1977 Libertarian Party Convention, mind-expansion advocate and LSD guru Timothy Leary gave a speech that few of us took very seriously. He spoke of something called the Internet, a network that would connect computers worldwide, allowing participants from around the globe to sign on and retrieve text, photographs, audio and video instantaneously, and to communicate in realtime with anyone in the whole world who also had a computer and a connection. He said that it would be the new revolution against the current social order and stifling status quo. He predicted it would be much, much bigger than drugs in its ability to overthrow the establishment. Whereas tuning in, turning on and dropping out had been of great interest to a somewhat narrow subset of the population, everyone would be able to use the Internet, in his own way, and thus the new revolution against the old order would transcend class, age, nationality and all other demographics. The bourgeois would have just as much interest and use for it as the so-called counterculture. And nothing would ever again be the same.

As I said, no one at the time really believed it. We figured Leary had just done a little too much acid and his imagination had gotten the best of him. The network of information he described seemed totally impossible – and yet it exists, precisely as he predicted it, right now.

In fact, even Timothy Leary might be surprised to see the newest developments. Hardly a week goes by without some substantial revolution in cyberspace. When Leary died in 1996, data storage, processing and transfer had yet to approach anything anywhere near their current magnificent levels of utility and speed. And next year will make this year look like nothing. Already, we think back five years and can hardly comprehend the breathtaking progress over that time.

ArmChairDiplomat.com - Links

What Every American Should Know About the Rest of the World

Read between the lines, fill in the blanks, enlarge your worldview, check out these links.

November 24, 2005

I'm Thankful For Howard Zinn

http://teresi.us/html/writing/howard_zinn.html

"I remember going to school and I would learn about Indians who came to Thanksgiving dinner gratefully. I would learn about Custer’s Last Stand, I would learn about Sitting Bull. There were a few moments in Indian history that we’d learn about. What we didn’t learn about was the fact that the American colonists that came here from the beginning were invading Indian soil and driving the Indians out of their land and committing massacres in order to persuade the Indians that they’d better move. And the history of the U.S. is a history of hundreds of little wars fought against the Indians, annihilating them, pushing them farther and farther onto a smaller and smaller piece of the country. And finally, in the late 19th century, taking the Indians that were left and squeezing them onto a reservation and controlling them."

"The story that’s not told is the deceptions that were played on the Indians, the treaties that were made with them, the treaties that were then broken by the American government. It’s important to know that, because if you do, then you will become aware that the American government can lie. It can deceive people. It can do it not only in relation to Native Americans, it can do it in relation to all of us."

-Howard Zinn

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/Ultimate_Betrayal.html

The quick Thanksgiving visit of Bush to Iraq, much ballyhooed in the press, was seen differently by an army nurse in Landstuhl, Germany, where casualties from the war are treated. She sent out an e-mail: "My 'Bush Thanksgiving' was a little different. I spent it at the hospital taking care of a young West Point lieutenant wounded in Iraq.... When he pressed his fists into his eyes and rocked his head back and forth he looked like a little boy. They all do, all nineteen in the ward that day, some missing limbs, eyes, or worse.... It's too bad Bush didn't add us to his holiday agenda. The men said the same, but you'll never read that in the paper."

November 23, 2005

WorldPress.org

News and Views From Around the World

November 22, 2005

I ♥ Chomsky

http://www.chomsky.info/whatsnew.htm

MediaLens media alert, Smearing Chomsky -- The Guardian Backs Down (November 21, 2005). An excerpt:

On November 4, we published a Media Alert, 'Smearing Chomsky', detailing the Guardian's October 31 interview with Noam Chomsky by Emma Brockes. The alert produced the biggest ever response from Media Lens readers - many hundreds of emails were sent to the newspaper.

The Guardian has since published a "correction and clarification" in regard to Brockes' piece by ombudsman Ian Mayes, which we discuss below ('Corrections and clarifications. The Guardian and Noam Chomsky,' The Guardian, November 17, 2005; http://www.guardian.co.uk/corrections/story/0,,1644017,00.html) The Guardian editor has also sent a form letter advising of the paper's retraction and apology.

[...]

It is clear that the Guardian's distortions were so obvious on this occasion -- and so obviously damaging to its reputation - that the editors felt obliged to respond seriously to complaints. We are willing to accept the Guardian claim that Mayes - who deserves real credit for the newspaper's apology - would have published his correction if just Chomsky had complained. But the editor's additional reply to readers clearly suggests that mass public engagement +did+ raise the issue to a higher level of seriousness within the Guardian. For example, a number of correspondents wrote to the editor saying they had been buying the paper for many years - sometimes as long as 30 or 40 years - and would not be doing so again. This is something the Guardian could ill afford to ignore - a point well worth reflecting on for all who aspire to a more honest and democratic media.

The Prospect/FP Top 100 Public Intellectuals

Who are the world's leading public intellectuals? FP and Britain’s Prospect magazine would like to know who you think makes the cut. We’ve selected our top 100, and want you to vote for your top five. If you don’t see a name that you think deserves top honors, include them as a write-in candidate. Voting closes October 10, and the results will be posted the following month.


NameOccupationCountry
Chinua AchebeNovelistNigeria
Jean BaudrillardSociologist, cultural criticFrance
Gary BeckerEconomistUnited States
Pope Benedict XVIReligious leaderGermany, Vatican
Jagdish BhagwatiEconomistIndia, United States
Fernando Henrique CardosoSociologist, former presidentBrazil
Noam ChomskyLinguist, author, activistUnited States
J.M. CoetzeeNovelistSouth Africa
Gordon ConwayAgricultural ecologistBritain
Robert CooperDiplomat, writerBritain
Richard DawkinsBiologist, polemicist Britain
Hernando de SotoEconomistPeru
Pavol DemesPolitical analystSlovakia
Daniel DennettPhilosopherUnited States
Kemal DervisEconomistTurkey
Jared DiamondBiologist, physiologist, historianUnited States
Freeman DysonPhysicistUnited States
Shirin EbadiLawyer, human rights activistIran
Umberto EcoMedievalist, novelistItaly
Paul EkmanPsychologistUnited States
Fan GangEconomistChina
Niall FergusonHistorianBritain
Alain FinkielkrautEssayist, philosopherFrance
Thomas FriedmanJournalist, authorUnited States
Francis FukuyamaPolitical scientist, authorUnited States
Gao XingjianNovelist, playwrightChina
Howard GardnerPsychologistUnited States
Timothy Garton AshHistorianBritain
Henry Louis Gates Jr.Scholar, cultural criticUnited States
Clifford GeertzAnthropologistUnited States
Neil GershenfeldPhysicist, computer scientistUnited States
Anthony GiddensSociologistBritain
Germaine GreerWriter, academicAustralia, Britain
Jürgen HabermasPhilosopherGermany
Ha JinNovelistChina
Václav HavelPlaywright, statesmanCzech Republic
Ayaan Hirsi AliPoliticianSomalia, Netherlands
Christopher HitchensPolemicistUnited States, Britain
Eric HobsbawmHistorianBritain
Robert HughesArt criticAustralia
Samuel HuntingtonPolitical scientist United States
Michael IgnatieffWriter, human rights theoristCanada
Shintaro IshiharaPolitician, authorJapan
Robert KaganAuthor, political commentatorUnited States
Daniel KahnemanPsychologistIsrael, United States
Sergei KaraganovForeign-policy analystRussia
Paul KennedyHistorianBritain, United States
Gilles KepelScholar of IslamFrance
Naomi KleinJournalist, authorCanada
Rem KoolhaasArchitectNetherlands
Enrique KrauzeHistorian Mexico
Julia KristevaPhilosopherFrance
Paul KrugmanEconomist, columnistUnited States
Hans KüngTheologianSwitzerland
Jaron LanierVirtual reality pioneerUnited States
Lawrence LessigLegal scholarUnited States
Bernard LewisHistorianBritain, United States
Bjørn LomborgEnvironmentalistDenmark
James LovelockScientistBritain
Kishore MahbubaniAuthor, diplomatSingapore
Ali MazruiPolitical scientistKenya
Sunita NarainEnvironmentalistIndia
Antonio NegriPhilosopher, activistItaly
Martha NussbaumPhilosopherUnited States
Sari NusseibehDiplomat, philosopherPalestine
Kenichi OhmaeManagement theoristJapan
Amos OzNovelistIsrael
Camille PagliaSocial critic, authorUnited States
Orhan PamukNovelistTurkey
Steven PinkerExperimental psychologistCanada, United States
Richard PosnerJudge, scholar, authorUnited States
Pramoedya Ananta ToerWriter, dissidentIndonesia
Yusuf al-QaradawiClericEgypt, Qatar
Robert PutnamPolitical scientistUnited States
Tariq RamadanScholar of Islam Switzerland
Martin ReesAstrophysicistBritain
Richard RortyPhilosopherUnited States
Salman RushdieNovelist, political commentatorBritain, India
Jeffrey SachsEconomistUnited States
Elaine ScarryLiterary theoristUnited States
Amartya SenEconomistIndia
Peter SingerPhilosopherAustralia
Ali al-SistaniClericIran, Iraq
Peter SloterdijkPhilosopherGermany
Abdolkarim SoroushReligious theoristIran
Wole SoyinkaPlaywright, activistNigeria
Lawrence SummersEconomist, academicUnited States
Mario Vargas LlosaNovelist, politician Peru
Harold VarmusMedical scientistUnited States
Craig VenterBiologist, businessmanUnited States
Michael WalzerPolitical theoristUnited States
Florence WambuguPlant PathologistKenya
Wang JisiForeign-policy analystChina
Steven WeinbergPhysicistUnited States
E.O. WilsonBiologistUnited States
James Q. WilsonCriminologistUnited States
Paul WolfowitzPolicymaker, academicUnited States
Fareed ZakariaJournalist, authorUnited States
Zheng BijianPolitical scientistChina
Slavoj ZizekSociologist, philosopherSlovenia

November 21, 2005

ThisNation.com

Dedicated to providing factual, unbiased information about government and politics in the United States of America.

November 20, 2005

KillingHope.org

If you flip over the rock of American foreign policy of the past century, this is what crawls out ...

invasions ... bombings ... overthrowing
governments ... suppressing movements
for social change ... assassinating
political leaders ... perverting
elections ... manipulating labor unions ...
manufacturing "news" ... death squads ...
torture ... biological warfare ...
depleted uranium ... drug trafficking ...
mercenaries ...

It's not a pretty picture. It is enough to give imperialism a bad name.

Read the full details in: Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II. by William Blum

The Anti-Empire Report

November 19, 2005

Iraq: What Did Congress Know, And When?

Bush says Congress had the same (faulty) intelligence he did. Howard Dean says intelligence was "corrupted."

We give facts.


The President says Democrats in Congress "had access to the same intelligence" he did before the Iraq war, but some Democrats deny it."That was not true," says Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. "He withheld some intelligence. . . . The intelligence was corrupted." Neither side is giving the whole story in this continuing dispute.

November 18, 2005

Chomsky! The Guardian retracts, and withdraws the interview from its website

The readers' editor has considered a number of complaints from Noam Chomsky concerning an interview with him by Emma Brockes published in G2, the second section of the Guardian, on October 31. He has found in favour of Professor Chomsky on three significant complaints.

Principal among these was a statement by Ms Brockes that in referring to atrocities committed at Srebrenica during the Bosnian war he had placed the word "massacre" in quotation marks. This suggested, particularly when taken with other comments by Ms Brockes, that Prof Chomsky considered the word inappropriate or that he had denied that there had been a massacre. Prof Chomsky has been obliged to point out that he has never said or believed any such thing. The Guardian has no evidence whatsoever to the contrary and retracts the statement with an unreserved apology to Prof Chomsky.

The headline used on the interview, about which Prof Chomsky also complained, added to the misleading impression given by the treatment of the word massacre. It read: Q: Do you regret supporting those who say the Srebrenica massacre was exaggerated? A: My only regret is that I didn't do it strongly enough.

No question in that form was put to Prof Chomsky. This part of the interview related to his support for Diana Johnstone (not Diane as it appeared in the published interview) over the withdrawal of a book in which she discussed the reporting of casualty figures in the war in former Yugoslavia. Both Prof Chomsky and Ms Johnstone, who has also written to the Guardian, have made it clear that Prof Chomsky's support for Ms Johnstone, made in the form of an open letter with other signatories, related entirely to her right to freedom of speech. The Guardian also accepts that and acknowledges that the headline was wrong and unjustified by the text.

Ms Brockes's misrepresentation of Prof Chomsky's views on Srebrenica stemmed from her misunderstanding of his support for Ms Johnstone. Neither Prof Chomsky nor Ms Johnstone have ever denied the fact of the massacre.

Prof Chomsky has also objected to the juxtaposition of a letter from him, published two days after the interview appeared, with a letter from a survivor of Omarska. While he has every sympathy with the writer, Prof Chomsky believes that publication was designed to undermine his position, and addressed a part of the interview which was false. Both letters were published under the heading Falling out over Srebrenica. At the time these letters were published, following two in support of Prof Chomsky published the previous day, no formal complaint had been received from him. The letters were published by the letters editor in good faith to reflect readers' views. With hindsight it is acknowledged that the juxtaposition has exacerbated Prof Chomsky's complaint and that is regretted. The Guardian has now withdrawn the interview from the website.

See also Brian Leiter's apt comments on the subject.

Iraq WMD Timeline: How the Mystery Unraveled

Iraq's history with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons is a long and winding path that eventually ended in an American invasion of the country.

In between Saddam Hussein's rise and fall from power, Iraq developed and used so-called weapons of mass destruction (WMD). It also reluctantly submitted to international inspections and destroyed its stockpiles and means of WMD production.

In the end, though, the government's opaque and obstinate nature made it difficult for outsiders to tell exactly what Iraq was doing, if anything, in the realm of WMD.

Saddam Becomes President ::: July 16, 1979
Saddam Hussein becomes president of Iraq after pushing his cousin Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr to resign.

Iran-Iraq War Begins ::: Sept. 22, 1980
Iraq invades Iran, beginning a war that ends in stalemate eight years later.

Israel Attacks ::: June 7, 1981
Israeli warplanes make a surprise attack on the French-built Osirak nuclear reactor near Baghdad. Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin says that his country had to act before Iraq could successfully build a nuclear weapon to use against the Jewish state. Saddam Hussein's Iraqi government says the reactor was not part of a plan to build nuclear weapons.

Chemical Attacks on Iran ::: 1983
Media reports describe Iraqi use of chemical weapons against Iranian forces. Mustard gas is the first weapon used. In 1984 reports say Iraq uses the nerve agent Tabun.

Gassing the Kurds ::: March 1988
Iraq uses chemical weapons against its own population during an attack on the rebellious Kurdish city of Halabja.

Invading Kuwait ::: Aug. 2, 1990
Iraq invades Kuwait, easily overwhelming its tiny neighbor.

Resolution 687 Bans Iraq WMD ::: April 3, 1991
Shortly after Iraq is ejected from Kuwait by an international military coalition, the United Nations Security Council passes its first resolution addressing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq. Resolution 687 states that Iraq must destroy its presumed stockpile of WMD, and the means to produce them. It also limits the country's ballistic missile capability. The U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) is established to oversee the inspection, destruction and monitoring of chemical and biological weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency is asked to document and destroy Iraqi efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Iraq accepts the resolution three days later, agreeing to disclose the extent of its WMD program to inspectors.

Unilateral Destruction ::: Summer 1991
Iraq unilaterally destroys WMD equipment and documentation in an effort at concealment of pre-war work.

Resolution 715 Demands Compliance ::: Oct. 11, 1991
Responding to Iraq's consistent efforts to interrupt or block inspection teams, the U.N. Security Council passes Resolution 715. The resolution says Iraq must "accept unconditionally the inspectors and all other personnel designated by the Special Commission".

'Defensive' Biological Weapons ::: May 1992
Iraq officially admits to having had a "defensive" biological weapons program. Weeks later, UNSCOM begins the destruction of Iraq's chemical weapons program. Progress is halted in July when Iraq refuses an inspection team access to the Ministry of Agriculture.

Denial and Acceptance ::: 1993
Inspections are again held up when Iraq attempts to deny UNSCOM and the IAEA the use of their own aircraft in Iraq. In late 1993 Iraq accepts resolution 715.

Nuclear, Chemical Weapons Programs Destroyed ::: 1994
UNSCOM completes the destruction of Iraq's known chemical weapons and production equipment. IAEA teams largely complete their mandate to neutralize Iraq's nuclear program, including the destruction of facilities Iraq had not even declared to inspectors.

Defection and Revelation ::: Aug. 8, 1995
Hussein Kamel, the former director of Iraq's Military Industrialization Corporation, responsible for all WMD programs, defects to Jordan. As a result, Iraq admits to a far more developed biological weapons programs than it had previously disclosed. Saddam Hussein's government also hands over documents related to its nuclear weapons program and admits to the attempted recovery of highly-enriched uranium.

Al-Hakam Destroyed ::: May 1996
Iraq's main facility for the production of biological weapons, Al-Hakam, is destroyed through explosive demolition supervised by UNSCOM inspectors.

The Fight Against Proliferation ::: 1997
The Additional Protocol is added to the global Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), giving IAEA inspectors more authority to investigate programs in member states. The protocol is in response to the realization that Iraq -- a NPT signatory -- had been able to move swiftly and covertly toward the construction of a nuclear weapon in the late 1980s under the treaty's previous safeguards. Inspections in the 1990s revealed that Iraq was much closer to building a nuclear weapon in the 1980s than had been suspected by IAEA officials.

Resolution 1115 ::: June 1997
In another effort to end Iraq's interference with inspection teams, the U.N. Security Council passes Resolution 1115. The resolution again calls for Iraq to comply with all previous resolutions regarding WMD. By the end of 1997, a diplomatic stalemate forces UNSCOM to withdraw most of its staff from Iraq.

Memorandum of Understanding ::: Feb. 20-23, 1998
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan visits Iraq in an effort secure inspections of what Iraq terms "presidential sites." The U.N. and Iraq agree to support the terms of the newly drafted "Memorandum of Understanding." The Memorandum secures UNSCOM access to eight previously off-limits presidential sites.

Operation Desert Fox ::: 1998
Cooperation ends between Iraq and inspectors when the country demands the lifting of the U.N. oil embargo. UNSCOM and the IAEA pull their staffs out of Iraq in anticipation of a US-led air raid on Iraqi military targets. The four-day military offensive known as Operation Desert Fox begins on December 16, 1998. According to a U.S. military Web site, the mission of Desert Fox was "to strike military and security targets in Iraq that contribute to Iraq's ability to produce, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction." The operation is considered a success, largely finishing off what was left of Iraq' s WMD infrastructure.

From UNSCOM to UNMOVIC ::: Dec. 17, 1999
The U.N. Security Council passes Resolution 1284, replacing UNSCOM with the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC). Hans Blix of Sweden is named to head the organization. UNMOVIC's staff are employees of the United Nations. UNSCOM's staff had been experts on loan from U.N.-member countries, calling into question the motives of individual team members.

World Trade Center Attacks ::: Sept. 11, 2001
Terrorists attack New York City and Washington, D.C., with passenger jets, radically altering America's view of national security issues.

'Axis of Evil' ::: Jan. 29, 2002
President Bush accuses Iraq of being part of an international "axis if evil" during his State of the Union address. Bush tells Congress:
"Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade … This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world."

'A Grave and Gathering Danger' ::: Sept. 12, 2002
President Bush accuses Iraq of failing to live up to its obligations to the U.N. during an address to the General Assembly. Bush tells the U.N.:
"We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger."

'Material Breach' ::: Nov. 8, 2002
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 says Iraq "remains in material breach of its obligations" under various U.N. resolutions and gives the country "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament" commitments.

The U.N. Moves Back In ::: Nov. 27, 2002
UNMOVIC and IAEA inspections begin again in Iraq, almost four years after the departure of inspectors prior to Operation Desert Fox.

Recycled Material ::: Dec. 7, 2002
Iraq delivers a 12,000-page WMD report to the U.N. in response to Resolution 1441. U.N. chief inspector Hans Blix says the information provided by Iraq is largely recycled material.

No 'Smoking Guns' ::: Jan. 9, 2003
UNMOVIC's Hans Blix and the IAEA's Director General Mohamed ElBaradei report their findings to the U.N. Security Council. Blix says inspectors have not found any "smoking guns" in Iraq. ElBaradei reports that aluminum tubes suspected by the U.S. to be components for uranium enrichment are more likely to be parts for rockets, as the Iraqis claim. John Negroponte, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., says:
"There is still no evidence that Iraq has fundamentally changed its approach from one of deceit to a genuine attempt to be forthcoming in meeting the council's demand that it disarm."

Sixteen Words ::: Jan. 28, 2003
In his State of the Union address, President Bush continues to view Iraq is a WMD threat. He makes a statement that implies Iraq is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Bush says:
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
It comes to light later that the president based his statement on discredited intelligence.

Powell's U.N. Appearance ::: Feb. 5, 2003
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell goes in person to the U.N. to make the case against Iraq. Citing evidence obtained by American intelligence, he tells the U.N. that Iraq has failed "to come clean and disarm." Powell adds:
"My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."

The Burden is on Iraq ::: Feb. 14, 2003
The IAEA's ElBaradei and chief weapons inspector Blix report to the U.N. Security Council on Iraqi cooperation in the search for WMD. They say they have not discovered any biological, chemical or nuclear weapons activities. Proscribed missile programs are discovered and disabled. Blix does express frustration with Iraq's failure to account for its vast stores of chemical and biological agents it was known to have at one point. Blix says:
"This is perhaps the most important problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it."

U.S. vs. U.N. ::: March 6-7, 2003
The night before Blix and ElBaradei are to report on inspection efforts in Iraq, President Bush gives a news conference in which he again says Iraq is hiding something. Bush says:
"These are not the actions of a regime that is disarming. These are the actions of a regime engaged in a willful charade. These are the actions of a regime that systematically and deliberately is defying the world."

Blix tells the U.N. the next day:
"Intelligence authorities have claimed that weapons of mass destruction are moved around Iraq by trucks, in particular that there are mobile production units for biological weapons … [But] no evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found."

Appearing with Blix, ElBaradei tells the U.N. that the IAEA has concluded that documents appearing to show Iraq shopping for uranium in Niger are, in fact, forgeries.

Invading Iraq ::: March 20, 2003
The U.S. military and other members of an American-led coalition invade Iraq. Baghdad falls on April 9. President Bush declares an end to major combat operations on May 1. Shortly afterward, the Pentagon announces formation of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) to search for WMD.

A Different Niger Story ::: July 6, 2003
Former diplomat Joseph C. Wilson questions the Bush Administration's use of intelligence about Iraqi WMD programs with an opinion piece in the New York Times titled "What I Didn't Find in Africa." Wilson says he was sent to Africa by the CIA to investigate claims that Iraq had tried to buy uranium ore in Niger. He reports that he didn't find any evidence of Iraq attempting to procure uranium in Niger, contradicting regular statements from the White House that Saddam Hussein was after the radioactive material there.

Tenet Takes the Blame ::: July 11, 2003
Director George Tenet says that the CIA should not have allowed the president to say in his State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to procure uranium in Africa. Deputy National Security Adviser Steve Hadley also accepts responsibility for failing to stop the president from using the information. Tenet says:
"These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President."

Novak Unmasks a CIA Agent ::: July 14, 2003
Robert Novak, in his syndicated commentary, reveals that Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA operative. Novak attributes the information to "two senior administration officials."

No Weapons Found ::: Oct. 2, 2003
After three months of looking, Iraq Survey Group (ISG) inspector David Kay tells Congress in an interim report that his American team of weapons inspectors has yet to find any evidence of WMD. Kay says:
"We have not yet found stocks of weapons, but we are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapon stocks do not exist, or that they existed before the war."

Kay Resigns ::: Jan. 23, 2004
David Kay resigns as head of the ISG. CIA Director George Tenet names Charles Duelfer to replace Kay, whose team failed to find evidence of active WMD production or stockpiles. Kay tells NPR:
"My summary view, based on what I've seen, is that we are very unlikely to find large stockpiles of weapons. I don't think they exist."

Bush Responds to Kay ::: Feb. 3, 2004
With David Kay saying that he didn't believe WMD existed in Iraq, President Bush reiterates his belief that Saddam Hussein was dangerous. Bush says:
"We know from years of intelligence, not only our own intelligence services, but other intelligence-gathering organizations, that he had weapons. After all, he used them."

Hutton Inquiry ::: Feb. 4, 2004
The Hutton Inquiry into allegations from the BBC that the British government had hyped WMD intelligence reports before the war with Iraq finds no basis for the allegations. Tony Blair says:
"The allegation that I or anyone else lied to this House or deliberately misled the country by falsifying intelligence on weapons of mass destruction is itself the real lie."

Senate Intelligence Report ::: July 9, 2004
The Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq is released. It faults America's ability to gauge Iraq's capabilities before the war. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) says:
"Before the war, the U.S. intelligence community told the president, as well as the Congress, that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and if left unchecked, would probably have a nuclear weapon during this decade. Well, today we know these assessments were wrong. They were also unreasonable and largely unsupported by the available intelligence."

Britain's Butler Report ::: July 14, 2004
Britain releases the Butler Report, which concludes that Iraq did not have significant, if any, stocks of chemical or biological weapons ready for deployment. Blair responds to the report:
"On any basis, he [Saddam Hussein] retained complete strategic intent on weapons of mass destruction, and significant capability. The only reason he ever let the inspectors back into Iraq was that he had 180,000 U.S. and British troops on his doorstep. He had no intention of ever cooperating fully with the inspectors."

No Weapons Found ::: Sept. 30 - Oct. 6, 2004
The ISG releases its final report and chief inspector Charles Duelfer testifies before congress about his team's findings. After 16 months of investigation, Duelfer concludes that Saddam Hussein had no chemical weapons, no biological weapons and no capacity to make nuclear weapons. This effectively ends the hunt for WMD. Bush responds to the report:
"The Duelfer report showed that Saddam was systematically gaming the system, using the UN oil-for-food program to try to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions. He was doing so with the intent of restarting his weapons program once the world looked away."

The Hunt is Over ::: Jan. 12, 2005
White House spokesman Scott McClellan tells reporters that the "pysical search" for WMD, having found no weapons, is over.

Robb-Silberman Report ::: March 31, 2005
The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction delivers its report to the president. Commonly known as the Robb-Silberman report -- in reference to the commission's co-chairmen -- the document describes the failure to find WMD in Iraq as one of the "most public -- and most damaging -- intelligence failures in recent American history." The report, which was commissioned by President Bush, asks what went wrong and conlcudes that wide-ranging reform of the intelligence bureaucracy is needed to guard against global WMD threats.