Keeping my mouth shut re Georgia

“Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”

You’ve probably noticed that I’ve said nothing about Russia invading Georgia.  This is, in part, because the exigencies of the past week have deprived me of time to read in detail about it.  I only know headlines and, since I have absolutely no background in the geography or the conflict, this means I’m abysmally ignorant.

The silence is also because, to the extent I have managed to grasp what’s going on out there, I don’t have anything to add to the discussion, or anything that I feel I want to voice personally despite the fact that so many others are saying the same thing.  Yes, Putin is a totalitarian dictator, but we’ve known that about him for a long time, and many of us have just been sitting here waiting to see how is old KGB attitudes end up merging with his megalomaniac traits.  Yes, this is all about oil.  Yes, this represents a very dangerous trend, although it’s as unclear now as it was during the Cold War whether Russia has the ability to back up its aggressive initiatives.  It’s easy to go in with the remaining guns from your former glory and squash a teeny little Republic.  It’s harder to maintain any long campaigns.  And yes, McCain showed leadership abilities, with Obama showing, first, ignorance (which is excusable in me, but not in him) and, second, the ability to follow McCain’s lead.

And yes, I’ve run out of echoing other, wiser people on the terrible tragedy, at the hands of a gross, bullying dictatorship, that is playing out in Georgia.

Related posts:

  1. “Shut yer mouth”
  2. American voters have their eyes wide shut *UPDATED*
  3. Keeping your eye on the ball
Email This Post To A Friend Email This Post To A Friend

134 Responses to “Keeping my mouth shut re Georgia”

  1. on 13 Aug 2008 at 10:15 am Mike Devx

    In every war of aggression, the aggressor acts out the part of the aggrieved, complaining bitterly about the injustices done, and the fact that there was no remaining choice available. The true test is what occurs in the aftermath of the War.

    You will be able to look at Iraq post-Bush, once this war is completely done, to judge the results of our War. I suspect you will see dramatic benefits. (This is all relevant ONLY to the extent that you consider the Iraq War to be a war of US aggression.)

    There are many more relevant other wars of aggression where the aftermath is outrageously ugly. For all their bitter complaining, the aggressors had one goal: The rape and brutalization of a prey. In every case where their war of aggression succeeded, the attacked country was to pay bitterly in blood and tears for decades.

    A side note that had me laughing: Germany agreed with Stalin to partition Eastern Europe and launched the Nazi invasion into Poland in 1939, stating bitterly that this was a defensive war against Poland and Britain and they had no choice. Poland executed a maneuver to send its best ships away to England for protection. How was France involved in this? To wit:

    On August 30, the Polish Navy sent its destroyer flotilla to Britain, executing Operation Peking. On the same day, Marshal of Poland Edward Rydz-Śmigły announced the mobilization of Polish troops. However, he was pressured into revoking the order by the French, who apparently still hoped for a diplomatic settlement, failing to realize that the Germans were fully mobilized and concentrated at the Polish border.

    Heh. The more things change the more they stay the same.

    “I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me.” —General George S. Patton

    “Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion.” —Norman Schwartzkopf

    “We can stand here like the French, or we can do something about it.” —Marge Simpson

    “As far as I’m concerned, war always means failure.” —Jacques Chirac, President of France

    “As far as France is concerned, you’re right.” —Rush Limbaugh

    “The only time France wants us to go to war is when the German Army is sitting in Paris sipping coffee.” —Regis Philbin

    An old saying: Raise your right hand if you like the French…. Raise both hands if you are French.

    Q: Why do French naval ships have glass bottoms?
    A: To see all their other ships.

    A man askes his companion, “What’s the most common French expression”? His friend scratches his head, shrugs his shoulders and replies, “I give up!”

    Q: Why did the French plant trees along the Champs Elysees?
    A: So the Germans could march in the shade.

    (Yes, I know, this is very ungrateful, considering we couldn’t have beat the British in 1776-1781 without the help of the French Navy… Just remember, they didn’t do it for us; We were a minor skirmish in their world war and splitting the Colonies from Great Britain was to France’s great advantage; so tell me again why I should owe gratitude?)

  2. on 13 Aug 2008 at 3:19 pm suek

    Here’s an interesting perspective…

    http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=9073

    Love the “French” lines…!

    Not sure the French military deserves the bad name, but like soldiers everywhere, they’re not responsible for their politicians…!

  3. on 13 Aug 2008 at 3:47 pm Mike Devx

    Excellent link, suek! (and I know that the French military jokes are really about their long-standing feckless political leadership, but yes, what fun anyway!)

    It’s hard to say how this plays out in the long run, not only for Georgia but for other small countries in the region.

    A snarling Russia will provide a very interesting months-long national security debate between McCain and Obama. Should McCain be smart enough to take it on.

    Obama will be in a box; the vast majority of his support – his far-left constituency – will not accept any worthwhile strong statements, and the rest of the American people won’t accept the spineless, craven, hopelessly weak tone of his initial remarks. It may get very interesting.

  4. on 13 Aug 2008 at 4:13 pm Zhombre

    It all goes back to the advertisement Hillary Clinton ran: who do you want in WH answering the phone @ 3 AM?

  5. on 13 Aug 2008 at 6:11 pm Earl

    It’s hard for me to imagine the U.S. going to war with Russia over Georgia……but we apparently bear some responsibility for the position we’re in. I’ve seen a couple of pieces that seem to establish pretty clearly that none of this was, or should have been, a surprise. We joined Europe in either ignoring, or not responding to, a whole series of Russian statements and actions, back when the stakes were low and the chances of avoiding this mess were higher.

  6. on 13 Aug 2008 at 6:17 pm Zhombre

    Earl: read Spengler’s take on Georgia from Asia Times:
    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JH13Ag01.html

  7. on 13 Aug 2008 at 6:43 pm Ozzie

    ” Speaking to reporters about the situation in Georgia, Sen. John McCain denounced the aggressive posture of Russia by claiming that:”in the 21st century nations don’t invade other nations.. . . “

  8. on 13 Aug 2008 at 6:46 pm Bookworm

    I know you’re thinking of Iraq there, Ozzie, but please remember that a coalition invaded Iraq, after Iraq had repeatedly and defiantly ignored UN resolutions and sanctions. Afghanistan was also a coalition activity. This was not one-on-one imperialism, no matter how much people wish it was.

  9. on 13 Aug 2008 at 8:09 pm Ymarsakar

    Hey Ozzie, people don’t use violence or threat of violence against each other in your nation, either. That is only allowed by the government, since the government has limitations put on them by the people.

    The only one who is allowed to invade nations are nations like America. But you aren’t like America, Oz. You don’t follow a set of principles which you just won’t back down from. America follows an ethical model that refuses to exploit other people for personal benefits.

    Btw, do not give the UN any legitimacy, for they are the source of much terror and crime in this world. They did not authorize the US invasion of Iraq and thank God for that.

    America is not good or bad because the Un said so.

    I dare say that you lack any belief you would be willing to defend if it took invading another country, Oz.

  10. on 14 Aug 2008 at 5:10 am Ozzie

    I know you’re thinking of Iraq there, Ozzie, but please remember that a coalition invaded Iraq, after Iraq had repeatedly and defiantly ignored UN resolutions and sanctions. — Book

    Yes, and the U.N, didnt authorize war, the U.S was caught “bugging” Security Council Members and whether you believe it or not, much of the coalition was bought and paid for. From the Baltimore Sun in 2004:

    But the record shows that early last year, the United States brought the full force of its powerful economy to bear on prospective military allies, offering more than $4 billion in an unsuccessful attempt to gain the allegiance of Turkey and helping to negotiate Poland’s $3.5 billion purchase of 48 F-16 fighter planes from Bethesda-based Lockheed Martin Corp.

    The Polish deal also included more than $6 billion in U.S. business investment that Lockheed promised to channel into Poland, an economic “offset” that caused Polish officials to call the purchase “the deal of the century.”

    Of course , we wont know for YEARS the extent to which colaition members were bribed.

    For an eye-opening account of the way things typically work, I suggest the book, Legacy of Ashes.

  11. on 14 Aug 2008 at 5:16 am Ozzie

    America follows an ethical model that refuses to exploit other people for personal benefits.- Ymar

    Tell that to the people of Iran, Iraq, Indonesia, Gualtemala and Chile, Ymar.

    The story Americans are told vs the truth that eventually emerges are always very different.

  12. on 14 Aug 2008 at 5:32 am Ozzie

    America is not good or bad because the Un said so- Ymar.

    Well, Ymar. The things I normally read aren’t normally framed in a “good or bad” context, but in a battle for natural resources.

    They tend to use words like “Unocal” and “pipelines,” not good and/or bad.

    Georgia has been in the news for quite some time.

    From 2002:

    Deployment of U.S. Special Operations forces to the Caucasus state of Georgia would help enforce a Washington pipeline policy aimed at neutralizing Russian influence in oil-rich Central Asia. . . .

    The Russian campaign served to maintain Russian control of all pipelines bringing oil and gas out of the Caspian basin. It seems clear that in the current decade the Bush administration is willing to send troops, from Georgia to Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, to neutralize Russian influence. The United States has already stationed 1,000 troops in Uzbekistan, and 300 close to the Chinese border in Kyrgyzstan, with more scheduled to arrive. . .

    Since the collapse in 1998 of California oil company Unocal’s efforts to establish a gas pipeline through Afghanistan, the focus of U.S. government strategy has been on a proposed gas pipeline — a project of the Pipeline Solutions Group, a U.S.-led consortium of oil companies — to be built across the Caspian, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey. Enron, with U.S. government money, conducted a feasibility study for this pipeline.

    The backup of U.S. pipeline politics with military support began under President Clinton, but received a boost with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s visit to the region last December. . ”

    http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=812

  13. on 14 Aug 2008 at 8:02 am suek

    >>The things I normally read aren’t normally framed in a “good or bad” context, but in a battle for natural resources.>>

    If your preference is for the standard that there is no “good or bad”, but just a battle for natural resources, what is your problem with the US?

  14. on 14 Aug 2008 at 8:18 am Mike Devx

    Ozzie is doing the same old tired left-wing dance moves here. I see it over and over, among my very liberal friends.

    They criticize the United States, sometimes for legitimate reasons. Then, when confronted by behaviors of other countries that is far, far worse than our behavior, they become silent, or they amp up their criticisms of the USA.

    When you ask them why, they offer this: “I am only interested in the behavior of my own country. I cannot control the behavior of other countries. Besides, the behavior of other countries should not be used as an excuse for my country’s behavior.”

    Sometimes they add: “I’m particular angry because so many Americans see the USA as angelic and perfect, and other countries as demonic. I have no choice but to keep throwing our own bad behavior in their faces, because they need to learn that we are not angels.”

    This outrageous lack of balanced criticism is precisely the reason many of us continue to accuse them of hating the West and in particular of hating the USA, and we are correct.

    Yes, the Unocal dealings are shifty and not up to our ideals. However, in the meantime, China is sponsoring the Darfur genocide solely for its own long-term oil interests. You will find Ozzie harshly criticizing the Unocal dealings… and then he will turn around and harshly criticise the Darfur dealings too. But who does he criticize for Darfur. Yes, friends and neighbors, he criticizes… the USA… again! Isn’t that simply special?

    In reality, he should be criticizing the USA and China, both. He is ethically required to identify China as, by far, with no real comparison, the worst of the two. Then perhaps a lament on how difficult it is to change China would be in order; and then, finally, a resolution to AT LEAST stop the lesser infractions by the USA, as something that he can accomplish. In this way he would acknowledge the truth of world affairs while doing what he could to fix our own mistakes.

    But no. The Ozzies of the world simply heap abuse on the USA and remain completely silent about the worse activities of others.

    - Your son gets into a fight at school and breaks another boy’s arm.
    - Your neighbor’s son gets into a fight at school and knifes the other boy repeatedly, who then is in emergency care for a week.
    - Ozzie, the principal, suspends your son and puts him in alternative school, while never punishing the other boy. On the local news, he spends five minutes haranguing your son and your parenting, remaining silent about the other boy.
    - Why does he do this? Because you LISTEN and are willing to take action, while the neighbor parent refuses to listen to him, threatens to sue, ignores him and belittles him. Ozzie would rather attack you.

    Perhaps my analogy is unfair, but I find it instructive. It’s not fair for me to identify Ozzie so closely with this hypothetical principal, because in truth the principal is exhibiting extreme ethical cowardice. But to me, that is the nature of these repeated attacks on the USA that do not also involve a willingness to criticize others AND to identify which behaviors are worse.

  15. on 14 Aug 2008 at 8:28 am Ozzie

    If your preference is for the standard that there is no “good or bad”, but just a battle for natural resources, what is your problem with the US? – suek

    My problem isnt with the U.S. It’s with the propaganda. And the people who blindly believe and/or peddle it.

    I accept that the U.S and Russia are in a battle over control of natural resources.

    I don’t accept the notion that the U.S is the world’s sole fireman ready to put out fires.

    A couple favortie quotes:

    “The enormous gap between what U.S. leaders do in the world and what Americans think their leaders are doing is one of the great propaganda accomplishments of the dominant political mythology.” — Michael Parenti

    The only thing new in the world is the history you don’t know. ~ Harry S Truman

  16. on 14 Aug 2008 at 8:40 am Ozzie

    You will find Ozzie harshly criticizing the Unocal dealings… and then he will turn around and harshly criticise the Darfur dealings too. But who does he criticize for Darfur. Yes, friends and neighbors, he criticizes… the USA… again! Isn’t that simply special? – Mike

    Actually, no. I don’t blame the U.S for Darfur. I have not read anything that suggests that the U.S is behind the genocide there.

    And you’ll not hear me defending China nor Russia either.

    I’m not criticizing Unocal’s dealings, either. It’s the same ‘ol, same ‘ol, as far as I can see.

    I’m criticizing Americans’ ignorance about Unocal’s dealings and geopolitics in general. . I see it for what it is. Others say, YAY!! Look! We’re Being HEROES!!

    From the Chicago Tribune in March, 2002:

    “The Asia Times reported in January that the U.S. is developing “a network of multiple Caspian pipelines,” and that people close to the Bush administration stand to benefit.

    For example, the proposed Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, linking Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey, is represented by the law firm Baker & Botts. The principal attorney is James Baker, former secretary of state and chief spokesman for the Bush campaign in the Florida vote controversy.

    In 1997, the now disgraced Enron Corp. conducted the feasibility study for the $2.5 billion Trans-Caspian pipeline being built under a joint venture between Turkmenistan, Bechtel Corp. and General Electric, the article noted. There are many other connections, too numerous to recount here. No wonder the rest of the world is a bit skeptical about our war on evildoers.”

  17. on 14 Aug 2008 at 8:54 am Ozzie

    This outrageous lack of balanced criticism is precisely the reason many of us continue to accuse them of hating the West and in particular of hating the USA, and we are correct.- Mike

    I love the country. But I’m not too keen on the fact that the government lies on a regular basis, which Democrats condone under Democratic presidents and Republicans condone under Republican presidents and it all comes down to some “Left vs Right’ nonsense when the lies continue regardless which part holds power.

    The history of what REALLY happened vs what Americans were told was happening is always fascinating/amazing/scary to me.

    I’m interested in the truth, which unfortunately doesn’t unfold for decades. (But hey, I just learned today that Julia Child was a member of the OSS, which is pretty spiffy.. If anyone told you “Julia Child child was a spy” you’d probably laugh, no?)

    But youre right. China is FAR WORSE.

  18. on 14 Aug 2008 at 9:16 am suek

    Had to throw this into the mix. Language warning.

    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/270650.php#270650

    >>I’m not too keen on the fact that the government lies on a regular basis>>

    Governments lie. _All_ governments. Is it bad? I don’t know…there are people out there who want to hurt us. Lying is a form of camoflage – a form of protection from attackers. But you want the US government to be the only government in the world that tells the truth 100% of the time? And it would be pretty stupid to tell the enemy a lie which you then refute when you’re talking to your own people – the enemy _listens_, you know.
    Add to that the fact that there are people in government who have their own secret agendas…and ones that they may succeed in accomplishing regardless of the good of the country because they have acquired the power and means to do so. In spite of your preference for no evaluation of “good and bad”, there _are_ good and bad people. And the government is made up of people – good and bad. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t.

    What you want is perfect people….guess what…they don’t exist.

  19. on 14 Aug 2008 at 9:42 am Ozzie

    But you want the US government to be the only government in the world that tells the truth 100% of the time? And it would be pretty stupid to tell the enemy a lie which you then refute when you’re talking to your own people – the enemy _listens_, you know.- Suek

    I’d like for the American government to stop doing horrendous things and then lying about it, yes.

    And I’d like for the American people to stop being so damn gullible.

    But that’s not going to happen.

    At least for now, Americans who WANT to know what happened in 1953 or 1963 or 1973 can find out. Most dont want to, though. And they dont believe you if you try to tell them about this coup or that coup and don’t believe that it affects anything today.

    There are no perfect people. But there are consequences for actions. And the sins of the father will be visited upon the children. Some children will recite happy, fluffy stories and deem it the truth, while others will try to find the actual truth.

    As for Georgia? That will take a while.

    In the meantime, those of us who were reading about Unocal and pipelines and the potential for friction between the U.S and Russia were laughed at by those who prefered to believe that Bush looked into Putin’s eyes and saw beauty in his soul.

  20. on 14 Aug 2008 at 10:42 am BrianE

    I was surprised to read this as I thought the issue of Kosovo had been settled:

    BELGRADE, Serbia, Aug 3–Serbia will seek the UN general assembly’s support to challenge Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence before the International Court of Justice, President Boris Tadic said Sunday.
    On February 17 the ethnic Albanian majority in Kosovo, a UN-run province of Serbia, unilaterally proclaimed independence and was promptly recognized by some 40 countries, including the United States and most of the European Union nations.

    Serbia and its traditional ally Russia immediately rejected the move, considering it illegal and claiming violation of international law.

    This does add some perspective to the situation in Georgia. As much as the left would like to use Iraq as a defense for Russia’s invasion of Georgia, the analogy is closer to our support of Kosovo’s independence from Serbia.

    I think we do know that Russia’s move into Georgia was planned well in advance of the latest “oppression” of the Ossetians by Georgia.

    Here is an interesting article written in 2006 that might add context.

    http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-caucasus/south_ossetia_4100.jsp

    South Ossetia is a bite-sized chunk of land on the southern slopes of the Caucasus mountains, one of four “breakaway states” that – along with fifteen recognized nation-states – emerged from the collapse of the Soviet Union (the other three are Abkhazia, Transdniestria, and Nagorno-Karabakh). The Ossetians are a largely Christian people, whose language is related to Farsi, and the majority of whom live on the northern side of the Caucasus in North Ossetia, which is part of Russia. South Ossetia was part of the Georgian republic within the Soviet Union, but in the early 1990s tried to gain autonomy from Tbilisi, which led to violent clashes in which many died and thousands were made refugees, both Georgian and Ossetian.
    Since then, South Ossetia, with the exception of a few villages controlled by the Georgian government in Tbilisi, has been run as a de facto independent state, although its proclamations of independence have been ignored by the international community. The territory is heavily reliant on Russian support. As in Abkhazia, Moscow has infuriated the Georgians by granting passports to the majority of the South Ossetian population, and providing significant economic backing.

    Seems like Russian meddling to me.

    But at the core it seems we’re struggling to develop a coherent justification for the use of force whether it be the US in Iraq, or Russia in Georgia, or NATO in Serbia. I’ve read here and at other blogs a defense or refutation of these justifications. We seem to be uneasy endorsing the concept that strategic power and self interest is all that is necessary. We wish for a more moral philosophical argument, when there may be none. These questions will always be colored by our core beliefs.

    The articles that Ozzie cites includes this statement: “These elites increase oppression while flaunting their Mercedes” referring to the US corporate investments. Well, one man’s flaunting is another man’s reward for entrepreneurship.

    We will never escape the underlying tensions between communism, socialism and capitalism. One is “good” and the other “evil” depending on core belief.

    Ozzie cites Michael Parenti and references the New America Media website.
    Who is Michael Parenti? According to his web site…
    He is one of the nation’s leading progressive political analysts.
    “Michael Parenti is a towering prophetic voice in American life. We need him now more than ever.” — Cornel West
    “Here at home and throughout the world people are fighting back against the forces of wealth, privilege, and militarism — some because they have no choice, others because they would choose no other course but the one that leads to peace and justice.” — Michael Parenti
    Book by Michael Parenti:
    Democracy For The Few, 8th Ed.
    DEMOCRACY FOR THE FEW is a penetrating interpretation of the American political system. It focuses both on the formal institutions of government as well as the broad configurations of power, wealth, and class: how the political system is used and controlled, for whose benefit and at whose cost. A comprehensive and powerful opus for student and layperson alike.
    From an article– The Stolen Presidential Elections by Michael Parenti

    Under orders from Governor Jeb Bush (Bush Jr.’s brother), state troopers near polling sites delayed people for hours while searching their cars. Some precincts required two photo IDs which many citizens do not have. The requirement under Florida law was only one photo ID. Passed just before the election, this law itself posed a special difficulty for low-income or elderly voters who did not have drivers licenses or other photo IDs. Uncounted ballot boxes went missing or were found in unexplained places or were never collected from certain African-American precincts. During the recount, GOP agitators shipped in from Washington D.C. by the Republican national leadership stormed the Dale County Canvassing Board, punched and kicked one of the officials, shouted and banged on their office doors, and generally created a climate of intimidation that caused the board to abandon its recount and accept the dubious pro-Bush tally.1
    Democratic poll watchers in Ohio, Arizona, and other states, who tried to monitor election night vote counting, were menaced and shut out by squads of GOP toughs. In Warren County, Ohio, immediately after the polls closed Republican officials announced a “terrorist attack” alert, and ordered the press to leave. They then moved all ballots to a warehouse where the counting was conducted in secret, producing an amazingly high tally for Bush, some 14,000 more votes than he had received in 2000. It wasn’t the terrorists who attacked Warren County.

    You will only cite Michael Parenti as an authority if you believe that Bush stole the election from both Gore and Kerry and that American democracy is only an illusion.

    From Pipeline Politics – Oil Behind Plan for U.S. Troops in Georgia, 2002

    The backup of U.S. pipeline politics with military support began under President Clinton, but received a boost with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s visit to the region last December.

    Vice-President Dick Cheney, as former CEO of the oil-services company Halliburton, is himself a veteran of the U.S. oil presence in Central Asia and has often spoken in public about the importance of the Caspian basin. He met last spring with many of the companies whose oil investments in the Caspian basin are now languishing. One wonders if Bush’s current military strategy was discussed at Cheney’s Energy Task Force meetings, by the U.S. oil companies whose current investments in Central Asia are stymied by the exorbitant rates charged by Russian pipelines.
    But there are big risks involved. Georgia, although less corrupt and oppressive than the dictatorships of Central Asia, has nonetheless been criticized this year by Human Rights Watch for its “crippling levels of corruption” and human rights abuses. Nearly all of these states are unstable and face armed opposition. The influx of U.S. military aid and corporate investment tends, in the eyes of observers like Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid, to benefit only those at the top. These elites increase oppression while flaunting their Mercedes, and thus feed the alienation of the public.

    We seem to be headed down a road that may lead to a balkanization of most countries, absent superior strategic power. If, in fact, any set of people occupying a particular location, can declare independence then the North’s action against the South was illegal 150 years ago and at some point in the future, the Southwest will declare it’s independence from the US and allegiance to the home country. I think we can guess what side Ozzie will be on.

    You can declare independence, but you better have the power to enforce it.

    By the way, Ozzie, was NATO justified in the war against Serbia?

  21. on 14 Aug 2008 at 10:53 am Ozzie

    We will never escape the underlying tensions between communism, socialism and capitalism.” — Brian E.

    Ah. But that’s not what’s happening between Georgia, Russia and the U.S. Russia is embracing capitalism, too

    From the Christian Science Monitor, in 2002:

    Terror war and oil expand US sphere of influence
    GIs build bases on Russia’s energy-rich flank

    By Scott Peterson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

    “. . . Firmly in the Russian and later Soviet sphere of influence since Napoleon’s day, these strategic regions, along with their Middle Eastern ramparts to the south, are now home to 60,000 American troops.

    Some of these soldiers are building what appear to be long-term bases at remote Central Asian outposts, raising critical questions about America’s future role.

    One aim is the containment of Islamic extremism, a goal shared by Russia on its vulnerable southern flank. Looking to challenge OPEC leader Saudi Arabia in the oil markets, Russia is also worried about protecting its growing economic interests in Central Asia and the Caucasus, which are crisscrossed by oil and gas pipelines – and potentially lucrative new routes.

    But the new nearness of America is triggering heated debate in Moscow, where President Vladimir Putin, by permitting US deployments, is being widely blamed for “losing” Central Asia and succumbing to a new American imperialism.. . .

    “The Russians have every reason to be worried” about US intentions in their “soft underbelly,” says Thomas Stauffer, an energy strategist and former Harvard professor in Washington. “The only geopolitical logic I can see [to long-term US moves],” Stauffer adds, “is that we want to get a certain amount of space on the checkerboard, with which we can negotiate with the Russians.”

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0319/p01s04-wosc.html

  22. on 14 Aug 2008 at 11:31 am BrianE

    From Ozzie’s link:

    While the US may have grand imperial designs – some experts even go so far as to speak of US troops “guarding” Caspian energy resources in case Iraqi oil supplies are disrupted by any American attempt to change the regime in Baghdad – others emphasize common US-Russian economic interests.

    “Don’t think like a ‘cold warrior,’ ” says Pat Davis Szymczak, the American publisher of the bi-monthly, Moscow-based magazine Oil and Gas Eurasia, who points out that the bulk of Central Asian energy resources reach the market through Russian pipelines.

    “Are we going to send a bunch of Marines to stand around an oil well with guns? So they’ve protected that oil – big deal. Are they going to take it away in armored vehicles?” Ms. Szymczak asks. “The only way to get it from Uzbekistan to cars in New York is by being friends with the Russians.”

    While the presence of American forces and the overthrow of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan are causing fresh thinking about how to tap Caspian riches, the context of cold war rivalries – played up by regional leaders often eager to wiggle free of Russia’s influence – still dominates discourse.

    This is a 2002 article– I think our primary objectives have been disclosed.

    “While the US may have grand imperial designs” is I would submit engaging in fantasy or wishful thinking, depending on one’s worldview.

    I can accept the theory that our strategic interests include the free flow of oil to world markets. Here our interests align with most of the industrialized world. We’ve seen from the recent oil price spike, that there is an oil price that would trigger real oil wars and the potential collapse of the world economy. Unfortunately the US would not be immune to that collapse.

    I would argue that it is not adventurism driving these moves, but merely forward thinking to insure an uninterrupted flow. A scenario in which Saudi oil production is curtailed or a host of lesser catastrophe’s occur requires our proactive approach to potential new sources, or stabilizing other potential disruptions.

    I would argue that oil company interests and our national security interests are aligned and am not overly concerned that Exxon may profit from this free flow of oil. We’ve never taken the approach of confiscating foreign oil, merely recognizing it’s vital importance to the world.

  23. on 14 Aug 2008 at 12:04 pm BrianE

    I read theories alluding to “payback” by the Russians for our intervention in Serbia, but I think the analysis that puts the invasion of Georgia more as an example to others that desire to tack West as probably correct.
    While the world defends its actions against Serbia raised in the International Court of Justice, it will be used to justify Russian actions to stop the genocide by Georgia against the hapless Ossetians in some minds (whether or not this occurred).
    Will it lead to the coercian of the West to accept Russian authority in South Ossetia and possibly Georgia?

  24. on 14 Aug 2008 at 12:11 pm Ozzie

    This is a 2002 article– I think our primary objectives have been disclosed. — Brian

    And I’d argue that primary objectives usually remain hidden for decades.

    “I would argue that it is not adventurism driving these moves, but merely forward thinking to insure an uninterrupted flow.. . . We’ve never taken the approach of confiscating foreign oil, merely recognizing it’s vital importance to the world.
    ” — Brian

    Yes, We’ve seen it that way since 1953 or so, when we waged our first coup to insure that America and Britian controlled the flow of oil in Iran. Honestly, if you get a chance to pick up “Legacy of Ashes” and you’ll also see how populations had to be supressed and killed to insure American supremacy.

    (If people are stupid enough to be born near oil, then they should expect to be maimed and killed, no?)

    In Dafur, China is guilty, so it’s acceptable to be horrified at that’s happening there.

  25. on 14 Aug 2008 at 2:21 pm Zhombre

    Thanks for the green light on Darfur. I am loathe to be unacceptably horrified. That’s so socially awkward, you know.

  26. on 14 Aug 2008 at 2:50 pm BrianE

    I’m not here to defend every action of the US in history, but I believe your scenario misses a key point. The cold war was in full swing and the British request for our help in staging the coup, may have had an anti-communist element to it. Mosadeq promoted the nationalization of the Oil Industry from Anglo-Persian Oil Company, and while we can argue that they were offered a reasonable settlement, it would have a ripple effect in other countries.

    INF (Iran National Front) aka Jebhe Meli Iran is not truly a Nationalist Party, in fact they are a Liberal Democratic Party; however, you will constantly hear me referring to them in this document; therefore, it is only proper for me to also include them amongst the other parties in this document. So by classification, Jebhe Meli is not a Nationalist Party; furthermore, they are a left wing political entity with a history of opportunism and sharing power with any political group such as Monarchists, Islamists, National Islamists, Communists, Socialists, Nationalists and whomever which can get them closer to power, control and capital.

    Their leader, Mohamad Mosadeq was an aristocratic old fool who had managed to rule over Iran for 2 whole lousy days (1953). Instead of reforming the Imperial Regime from the within, he practically overthrown the Monarchy, kicked Shah out of Iran, took over the government and made a so-called “In-Tel-Egg-Chew-All” Coup de Tat! At the time, Jebhe Meli did not have enough popular backing amongst the military, government employees and the masses to control the government; however, Tudeh Communist Party had massive backings in all 3 groups to take over the government. If 28 Mordad 1953 CIA Coup would have not occurred, then eventually Tudeh Communist Party with the help of USSR would have taken over the government from Mosadeq and Jebhe Meli. Iran would have become the 16th Republic of the Soviet Union. There is no doubt in my mind that this is a very realistic possible scenario, which could have happened to Iran in the 1950s. So Mosadeq’s arrogance and thirst for power could change the destiny of a nation.

    http://iranpoliticsclub.net/history/nazis1/index.htm

    The fact that the Shah was no improvement is regrettable.

  27. on 14 Aug 2008 at 3:22 pm Ozzie

    I am loathe to be unacceptably horrified. That’s so socially awkward, you know.- Zhombre

    Well, Zhombre. if you tell people you are horrified by American-led coups in Iran in 1953 or in Iraq in 1963 or in Chile in 1973, some get offensive.

    Atrocities , shmytrocities….

  28. on 14 Aug 2008 at 3:29 pm Ozzie

    The cold war was in full swing and the British request for our help in staging the coup, may have had an anti-communist element to it.- Brian

    It was sold to Eisnenhower that way, tis true.

    But the declassified documents are pretty damning.

    The U.S. government is populated by some pretty scary folks.

    Another interesting tidbit from the Eisenhower era:

    The president noted that the Joint Chiefs of Staff had told him, “we should do what was necessary even if the result was to change the American way of life. We could lick the whole world… if we were willing to adopt the system of Adolph Hitler.” — President Dwight D. Eisenhower, as quoted in the National Security Council declassified minutes of a meeting in Fall 1953, and as published in “Legacy of Ashes – The History of the CIA” by Tim Weiner, page 75.

  29. on 14 Aug 2008 at 6:15 pm BrianE

    The president noted that the Joint Chiefs of Staff had told him, “we should do what was necessary even if the result was to change the American way of life. We could lick the whole world… if we were willing to adopt the system of Adolph Hitler.”

    Boy, aren’t we glad Eisenhower didn’t take him up on the offer.

    I’m not sure what you’re point is Ozzie.

    Are you claiming that America and the former Soviet Union are morally equivalent?

    http://www.fortfreedom.org/h10.htm

    ]]]] Twentieth Century Killed, by Cause [[[[[[[

    CAUSE TOTALS AVERAGES
    (in millions) (per 100,000 population)
    —————-
    Government 119.4 349
    Communist 95.2 477
    Other non-free 20.3 495
    Partially free 3.1 48
    Free 0.8 22
    —————-
    War 35.7 22
    International 29.7 17
    Civil 6.0 26
    —————-

    Using these conservative estimates, I would take my chances siding with American interests, and I have no problem defending its aims, warts and all. 95 million deaths caused by Communist governments, 800,000 by Free governments.

    Given these figures, it isn’t a stretch to see why we worked so hard to defeat totalitarian governments– they are very deadly to their citizens.

    What is clear is that we are fallen people, and our best attempts to do good, often fail and are sometimes diverted from their noble goals.

  30. on 14 Aug 2008 at 7:01 pm Ymarsakar

    Oz is claiming that the US and the Soviets are both corrupted by power and like Republicans and Democrats, aren’t really different or going anywhere positive.

    What is clear is that we are fallen people, and our best attempts to do good, often fail and are sometimes diverted from their noble goals.

    Why would evil freely allow the good to destroy their plans? They have saboteurs ready to wreck it. Both inside and outside Western civilization.

    They tend to use words like “Unocal” and “pipelines,” not good and/or bad.

    Which is rather the problem. A world of moral equivalency or a viewpoint that does not realize and accept that people see their actions as good and other people’s actions as evil, thus requiring an ethical system, not just a moral one, is a world view that cannot produce any human progress.

    Where will you go by talking about issues independent of the good it will do people and the harm it will cause?

    The real issue has always been, will you back Georgia or will you back Russia, Oz. Or will you just sit on the sidelines and try to be neutral.

  31. on 14 Aug 2008 at 7:03 pm Ymarsakar

    whether you believe it or not, much of the coalition was bought and paid for

    See, you turned an alliance of mutual interests into some kind of mercenary or monetary exchange, like citizens, individuals, mobsters, and gang members do all the time in the world.

    Money is part of the Great Games played by the Great Powers, but what is at stake is life and liberty, not money.

    Georgians know this very well by now, but you don’t. And there’s a reason for that.

  32. on 14 Aug 2008 at 7:05 pm Ymarsakar

    Tell that to the people of Iran, Iraq, Indonesia, Gualtemala and Chile, Ymar.

    See, you have no idea or intention of making the world a better place or working with those who have the power to do so to use it wisely and constructively. All you want to do is to try to hamstring the efforts of those actually making an attempt.

  33. on 14 Aug 2008 at 7:07 pm Ymarsakar

    Oz’s position is also rather schizophrenic in some cases. The US is supposed to be an exploiter, but then suddenly we’re bribing nations to make them our allies.

    Man, the US Imperialism is so stingy they will exploit other people’s resources by giving them money and military hardware.

    This is what happens when you get that morally relativistic and nihilist viewpoint going on.

  34. on 15 Aug 2008 at 3:59 am Ozzie

    Given these figures, it isn’t a stretch to see why we worked so hard to defeat totalitarian governments– they are very deadly to their citizens. – Brian

    And I’m telling you that we didnt. In fact, in many cases, we propped up brutal dictatorships.

    This book takes a even-handed, just-the-facts approach, http://www.randomhouse.com/doubleday/legacyofashes/legacy.htm though the author’s bias shines though occassionally (For example, his distaste for the Kennedys makes it seem as if JFK approved Operation Northwoods, when, in fact, though all Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on the plan to kill Americans and blame Cuba, the Kennedy administration said No No No).

    He also just briefly mentions the Dr. Frank Olson case, without addressing any of the latest findings.

  35. on 15 Aug 2008 at 4:13 am Ozzie

    I’m not sure what you’re point is Ozzie.- Brian

    My point is that believing in warm and fuzzy mythology is dangerous. And there is often a vast difference between what we’re told and what is actually occurring.

    Here’s another interesting disclosure, from the Kennedy era:

    In the early 1960s, America’s top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

    Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

    The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba’s then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

    America’s top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: “We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba,” and, “casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.”

    Details of the plans are described in Body of Secrets (Doubleday), a new book by investigative reporter James Bamford about the history of America’s largest spy agency, the National Security Agency. However, the plans were not connected to the agency, he notes.

    The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy’s defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.

    “These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing,” Bamford told ABCNEWS.com.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662

  36. on 15 Aug 2008 at 7:42 am suek

    >>The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing.>>

    That statement alone speaks in favor of the government. You are only embarrassed when you have a sense of right and wrong, and are aware of having considered doing something wrong.

    >>The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff>>

    Of course. The military – or whoever the appropriate body is – is given a specific task. Their’s is not to decide what is “good” or “bad”, their’s is to just come up with plans to accomplish a particular mission. Somehow. After the plans are devised, the decision makers are the ones who decide. That’s _their_ job. There’s no point in denying ideas when they’re in the idea form – it’s in the prosecution of ideas that certain ones are acceptable, and others are not.

  37. on 15 Aug 2008 at 8:27 am Bookworm

    I’m hustling off to another carpool in a minute, so I just want to address one point. It’s true that the US (especially acting through the CIA), got into bed with or fomented some horrible dictatorships. However, the US never did it simply to aggrandize US power or exert imperial control. These steps — mistaken though they were — were also taken as part of the greater campaign against Communism. And the numbers show that Communism, to date, has been the greatest killer and destroyer of freedom in the modern world.

    Vast wars such as the Cold War, which take place globally and over decades, are always going to result in bad decisions and regrettable allies. However, one fights the wars one has and, just as in the heat of battle in a hot war, during the long-drawn out battles of the cold war, one makes uneasy but necessary alliances, and one makes mistakes.

  38. on 15 Aug 2008 at 8:37 am Ozzie

    >>The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing.>>

    That statement alone speaks in favor of the government. You are only embarrassed when you have a sense of right and wrong, and are aware of having considered doing something wrong. – suek

    All Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on the plan, Suek. It was A-OK with them, but not with McNamarra.

    “Their’s is not to decide what is “good” or “bad”, their’s is to just come up with plans to accomplish a particular mission. ” -suek

    Yes, the plan was to find a reason to go to war with Cuba.

    Seymour Hersh just reported on Bush Adminstration “Ideas” to provoke war with Iran. . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r29BtzfSz0o

    Yet, many Americans still believe that the U.S. seeks to avoid war at all cost, based only upon the myths they’ve been told since birth.

    You can’t fight that kind of indoctrination… It’s kind of like trying to reason with someone who believes that the Kennedy era was “Camelot.”

    “There’s no point in denying ideas when they’re in the idea form – it’s in the prosecution of ideas that certain ones are acceptable, and others are not.” — suek

    The history of ideas that have been implemented has been similarly immoral and/or amoral.

    You can argue that it doesn’t matter, but the CIA concept of blowback suggests otherwise.

    And then there’s the question of where God fits in all of this:

    “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.. . . ” Thomas Jefferson

    “Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions.”– Ulysses S. Grant

  39. on 15 Aug 2008 at 9:02 am Ozzie

    However, the US never did it simply to aggrandize US power or exert imperial control. These steps — mistaken though they were — were also taken as part of the greater campaign against Communism. And the numbers show that Communism, to date, has been the greatest killer and destroyer of freedom in the modern world — Bookworm

    Communism was often given as the reason, Bookworm, but the underlying motivation was often the desire to control a nation’s natural resources. The 1953 overthrow of Mossadeq is a prime example. After Truman wisely turned them down, the Brits sold the coup to Eisenhower using the fight against Communism as the reason, but oil was the prime motivation.

    The overthrow of the Arbenz government in Guatemala is another example. The United Fruit Company and the Dulles Brothes benefitted, though the peope of Guatemala certainly did not. As CIA associate Jack Peuifoy put it, “”I have come to Guatemala to use the big stick. I am definitely convinced that if the President (Arbenz) is not a communist, he will certainly do until one comes along.”

  40. on 15 Aug 2008 at 9:18 am suek

    Again…

    So what’s your point?

  41. on 15 Aug 2008 at 9:30 am Ozzie

    Again…

    So what’s your point?
    - suek

    My point is the Truth is important, though it often takes years to decipher.

    Americans should never trust the government’s story, but for some reason, they always do.

    “If the president goes to the American people and wraps himself in the American flag and lets Congress wrap itself in the white flag of surrender, the president will win…. The American people had never heard of Grenada. There was no reason why they should have. The reason we gave for the intervention–the risk to American medical students there–was phony but the reaction of the American people was absolutely and overwhelmingly favorable. They had no idea what was going on, but they backed the president. They always will.” — Irving Kristol, The Fettered Presidency,1989

  42. on 15 Aug 2008 at 10:43 am BrianE

    More on the 1953 Iranian coup:

    In 1951, Iran’s Parliament voted to nationalize the oil industry, and legislators backing the law elected its leading advocate, Dr. Mosaddeq, as prime minister. Britain responded with threats and sanctions.

    Dr. Mosaddeq, a European-educated lawyer then in his early 70′s, prone to tears and outbursts, refused to back down. In meetings in November and December 1952, the secret history says, British intelligence officials startled their American counterparts with a plan for a joint operation to oust the nettlesome prime minister.

    The Americans, who “had not intended to discuss this question at all,” agreed to study it, the secret history says. It had attractions. Anti-Communism had risen to a fever pitch in Washington, and officials were worried that Iran might fall under the sway of the Soviet Union, a historical presence there.

    In March 1953, an unexpected development pushed the plot forward: the CIA’s Tehran station reported that an Iranian general had approached the American Embassy about supporting an army-led coup.

    The newly inaugurated Eisenhower administration was intrigued. The coalition that elected Dr. Mosaddeq was splintering, and the Iranian Communist Party, the Tudeh, had become active.

    Allen W. Dulles, the director of central intelligence, approved $1 million on April 4 to be used “in any way that would bring about the fall of Mosaddeq,” the history says.

    “The aim was to bring to power a government which would reach an equitable oil settlement, enabling Iran to become economically sound and financially solvent, and which would vigorously prosecute the dangerously strong Communist Party.”

    http://www.iranchamber.com/history/coup53/coup53p1.php

    When looking at history, determining motives can become a very subjective enterprise.

    The fact is that Eisenhower approved the plan based on communist containment.

    We were at war with communism, and war is a messy business. Whether the adventure produced a more virulent strain of Islamic radicalism culminating in the ’79 coup is speculation. Would the Mullahs been more moderate had the Shah been less repressive or was the Shah repressive because of the radical nature of the mullahs is also speculation.

    What is evident that times change and attitudes change. Had today’s attitudes been projected during WWII, we would not have defeated the Nazis. The losses during D-day would have been unacceptable, the bombing of Dresden would have brought up calls for senate hearings, civilian losses in the slog to Berlin would have prompted cries of war crimes.

    We don’t fight wars in the same way today, but WWII was not fought with the tactics of WWI.

  43. on 15 Aug 2008 at 11:27 am Ozzie

    When looking at history, determining motives can become a very subjective enterprise.

    The fact is that Eisenhower approved the plan based on communist containment.- Brian

    Yes, I know. That doesnt make it the truth, however.

    From an interview with the author of “All the Shah’s Men,” another book that deals with the 1953 coup:

    ” The British agent who came to Washington to present the coup plan to Eisenhower’s team, Christopher Montague Woodhouse, wrote afterward that he knew the Americans would not respond to an appeal based on Britain’s desire to regain its oil company. He decided instead to argue that Mossadegh was leading Iran toward communism. This argument was patently false, but Woodhouse sensed it would move John Foster Dulles and the rest of the Eisenhower administration into action. He was right.”

    Truman saw Mossadegh as a buffer against communism. Go figure.

    I suggest you read “All the Shah’s Men,” but in the meantime, here’s more from that interview:

    Question: Let’s start with history. In 1953 the Eisenhower administration backed a coup against the elected leader of Iran, a man named Mossadegh, who had sought to nationalize the country’s oil industry. The British wanted to overthrow him to save their control over Iran’s oil. But why did the United States become involved? In your book you seem to argue that Ike was conned into helping the British out.

    Answer: The idea that Mossadegh should be overthrown originated with the British. They were apoplectic at the prospect of losing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, which Mossadegh’s government had nationalized with the unanimous approval of the Iranian parliament. Their efforts to carry out a coup, however, were disrupted when Mossadegh learned of their plan and responded by shutting the British embassy and expelling all British diplomats from Iran. Among these diplomats were the secret agents who had been assigned to carry out the coup. That left the British with no way to depose Mossadegh. Prime Minister Churchill tried to persuade President Truman to carry out the coup as a favor to the British, but Truman refused. Only after Eisenhower came into office did the United States change its mind.”

    As I stated before, Woodhouse later wrote that he knew that Eisenhower would respond much the same way that Truman did, so he switched the sales pitch to the “patently false” argument that Iran was gonna go communist..

  44. on 15 Aug 2008 at 11:33 am Bookworm

    I was reading a book about the 1960s, a decade I watched from the sidelines, as I was just a small child, and was reminded that so much of what’s wrong with Africa nowadays was a result of British policies, that America blindly followed for Cold War reasons. That is, Britain set the agenda for economic or imperial benefit, and America blithely and thoughtlessly followed along because it saw advantages to its position vis a vis Russia. Certainly all those 60s and 70s chickens are coming home to roost, but it still doesn’t mean we’ve lost the right to defend ourselves. So, Ozzie’s truth shouldn’t (and couldn’t) mean that, because we’ve made mistakes in the past (whether for good motives or bad), we must become supine now, and let our culture and our people die.

  45. on 15 Aug 2008 at 11:44 am Ozzie

    More on the 1953 Iranian coup- Brian

    If you go to minute 5 or so in this clip, the coups in Iran and Guatemala are discussed. It’s interesting stuff:

  46. on 15 Aug 2008 at 12:04 pm Ozzie

    So, Ozzie’s truth shouldn’t (and couldn’t) mean that, because we’ve made mistakes in the past (whether for good motives or bad), we must become supine now, and let our culture and our people die.- Book

    People here have expressed concern about what might occur should Obama win the presidency. If I remember correctly, someone worried about detention camps, with U.S. citizens being rounded, but those plans have been around for decades, with Kellogg, Brown and Root currently winning the contracts to build emergency camps, if need be. Under LBJ, we had Operation Garden Plot and under Reagan, we had Rex 84, and those provisonal plans remain in place.

    Ron Suskind’s latest book says that the Bush adminstration knew there weren’t WMD, which confirms what former CIA agent Ray McGovern was saying all along. Hell, George H. W Bush hired a PR company to sell the first Gulf War, and false stories about babies being thrown out of incubators and forged satelite photographs helped convince Congress.

    And Seymour Hersh reported that Cheney et al discussed plans to build “Iranian” boats and shoot at Americans as a means to go to war with Iran. Which sounds a lot like Operation Northwoods, if you ask me.

    What I’m trying to show is that it doest matter if a Republican or a Democrat holds office, and that threats to our nation come from within, as well as from without.

    We Americans should always be wary of the “official story” but for some reason, Democrats are perfectly fine with bad behavior from Democratic presidents and Republicans condone bad behavior from Republicans.

  47. on 15 Aug 2008 at 1:26 pm Ymarsakar

    What I’m trying to show is that it doest matter if a Republican or a Democrat holds office, and that threats to our nation come from within, as well as from without.

    Like I said before, Book. It doesn’t really matter to Oz whether Russia gobbles up Georgia or the US takes over Afghanistan/Iraq.

  48. on 15 Aug 2008 at 1:28 pm Ymarsakar

    Americans should never trust the government’s story, but for some reason, they always do.

    In case you hadn’t noticed, Seymour Hersh is part of the government, for he has decided policy without even being elected.

    It’s when you start talking about the government and how you have a superior perspective that your nihilism and refusal to believe in “mythologies” start breaking down into its constituent components.

  49. on 15 Aug 2008 at 2:43 pm BrianE

    Ozzie,
    I watched the Bill Moyers “The Secret Government” piece and his account of Iran is at odds with other accounts that I provided, which frankly have more credibility.
    I noticed the related videos–
    “Visual Proof that Illuminati Bloodlines Control the Planet” or “UFO’s – The Secret Government”, or how about “CFR – The Secret Government”.
    I like the last one.

    And to your allegation that the WH forged a letter about AQ and Iraq:

    “The White House had concocted a fake letter from Habbush to Saddam, backdated to July 1, 2001,” Suskind writes. “It said that 9/11 ringleader Mohammad Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq – thus showing, finally, that there was an operational link between Saddam and al Qaeda, something the Vice President’s Office had been pressing CIA to prove since 9/11 as a justification to invade Iraq. There is no link.”

    The White House flatly denied Suskind’s account. Tony Fratto, deputy White House press secretary, told Politico: “The allegation that the White House directed anyone to forge a document from Habbush to Saddam is just absurd.”

    (Suskind writes), “They secretly resettled him in Jordan, paid him $5 million – which one could argue was hush money – and then used his captive status to help deceive the world about one of the era’s most crushing truths: that America had gone to war under false pretenses,” the book says.

    Suskind writes that the forgery “operation created by the White House and passed to the CIA seems inconsistent with” a statute saying the CIA may not conduct covert operations “intended to influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies or media.”

    “It is not the sort of offense, such as assault or burglary, that carries specific penalties, for example, a fine or jail time,” Suskind writes. “It is much broader than that. It pertains to the White House’s knowingly misusing an arm of government, the sort of thing generally taken up in impeachment proceedings.”

    Habbush is still listed as wanted on a State Department website designed to help combat international terrorism, with the notation: “Up to $1 Million Reward.”

    Former CIA Director George J. Tenet says about the supposed forgery, in a statement: “There was no such order from the White House to me nor, to the best of my knowledge, was anyone from CIA ever involved in any such effort.”

    NBC’s David Gregory reported on “Today” that Habbush passed his information in “secret meetings with British intelligence.”

    Tenet says about Habbush in the statement: “In fact, the source in question failed to persuade his British interlocutors that he had anything new to offer by way of intelligence, concessions, or negotiations with regard to the Iraq crisis and the British – on their own – elected to break off contact with him.

    “There were many Iraqi officials who said both publicly and privately that Iraq had no WMD – but our foreign intelligence colleagues and we assessed that these individuals were parroting the Ba’ath party line and trying to delay any coalition attack. The particular source that Suskind cites offered no evidence to back up his assertion and acted in an evasive and unconvincing manner.”

    I know, I know, Tenet is part of the cabal so he can’t possibly be telling the truth.

    It should be pretty easy to produce Habbush. He must have burned through the $5 mil in hush money. I’m sure George Soros would ante up a few million more to back up Suskind’s story.

    The problem with conspiracy theories is that they are so much fun. Careful analysis, giving statements the benefit of the doubt when prudent, and resisting the urge to assume the worst motives are not nearly so, well, fun.

    I do have to admit a favorite conspiracy theory myself. I don’t think Oswald acted alone. I think Johnson, working with the Mafia, did it.

  50. on 16 Aug 2008 at 1:36 am Mike Devx

    I’d like to give Ozzie some partial credit. My post #14 claimed:
    Sometimes they add: “I’m particular angry because so many Americans see the USA as angelic and perfect, and other countries as demonic. I have no choice but to keep throwing our own bad behavior in their faces, because they need to learn that we are not angels.”

    Ozzie was quite honest in replying in #16:
    I’m criticizing Americans’ ignorance about Unocal’s dealings and geopolitics in general. . I see it for what it is. Others say, YAY!! Look! We’re Being HEROES!!

    If you look at all of Ozzie’s comments above, you will find a vast amount of criticism of America and American gullibility to realpolitik… and very, very little criticism of other countries or their people. In fact, the only direct criticism that I can find occurred here, in Ozzie #17:

    I’m interested in the truth, which unfortunately doesn’t unfold for decades. (But hey, I just learned today that Julia Child was a member of the OSS, which is pretty spiffy.. If anyone told you “Julia Child child was a spy” you’d probably laugh, no?)

    But youre right. China is FAR WORSE.

    Get it? Again, a specific comment relating to the west, and then a very, very short, utterly generic criticism of China as being “far worse”. But you will notice that Ozzie never lists even one detail of corroborating evidence concerning any other country. All he has is a vast listing of the sins of America, as presented by the Left.

    All that would be fine. Except that the result of such an obsessive focus on the ends and means of your own country is that your foreign policy inevitably becomes “Blame America First”. From Ace Of Spades we get this commentary:

    My favorite by far was the response of Armando Llorens, coblogger at Talkleft, who wrote:
    We are ruled by lunatics. I can think of no good reason for the United States to have a missile defense system in Poland, EXCEPT to provoke Russia. To ANNOUNCE such a deal NOW, given the situation in the Caucasus, is simply madness.
    At least he was able to puzzle out the significance of the deal.

    This kind of analysis is in fact the inevitable result of Ozzie’s 100% focus on the Sins of America, while ignoring the Sins of Everyone Else.

    - The only purpose is to “provoke Russia”. Not to “respond to Russian aggression”. It would be wrong, you see, for us to respond. Also, a response can be defended. A “provocation” is by definition completely unwarranted and is an initial, opening act of aggression. On the left, we are doing the provoking. Russia is just being… I suppose, innocent and blameless.

    - You also have to love the usual refusal to assign blame or be specific. Note that the crisis is referred to solely as “the situation in the Caucasus”. As always, note how careful Leftist writers are to never assign blame to the Russians. Nor even to ever identify exactly what it is the Russians did.

    What Ozzie does with his obsessive focus solely on the Sins Of America would be humorous, and not worth bringing up, if it wasn’t for this inevitable and dangerous resulting foreign policy approach.

    Finally it’s worth noting that – as we’ve all pointed out in the past, many times – the same kind of Leftist blindness applies to Israel, the Palestinians; the entire Middle East. And the resulting Middle East foreign policy on the left is similarly an outrage.

    Ozzie would spend ten thousand words criticizing Israel, listing an encyclopedic series of links and supporting paragraphs. Then he’d conclude with,
    “And, yes, Iran is being worse in demanding the genocide, complete and total murder, of all Israelis.” Actually, I’m being kind. That took me seventeen words. After ten thousand words damning the Israelis, I bet Ozzie would contain his criticisms of others to no more than ten words.

  51. on 16 Aug 2008 at 5:04 am Ozzie

    I noticed the related videos– Brian

    Yeah. I noticed them , too. Many of them made me laugh.. But Bill Moyers can’t really help who his show gets lumped with on YouTube, can he?

    “I do have to admit a favorite conspiracy theory myself. I don’t think Oswald acted alone. I think Johnson, working with the Mafia, did it.” – Brian

    All sorts of theories swirl around the Kennedy assassination, but they’re only theories. But only 3 in 10 Americans believe that Oswald acted alone.

    The book I’m reading shows that government officials didnt buy the “Oswald as lone gunman,” theory, either. Many thought that the Kennedys’ plans to kiill Castro were turned on JFK .

    I’d never venture to guess into who and or what was involved, but I stumbled across an interesting tidbit while reading “Legacy of Ashes.” According to the author, LBJ thought that JFK’s murder was divine retribution for Kennedy’s role in the assassination of President Diem.

  52. on 16 Aug 2008 at 5:14 am Ozzie

    “If you look at all of Ozzie’s comments above, you will find a vast amount of criticism of America and American gullibility to realpolitik… and very, very little criticism of other countries or their people. . ” — Mike

    Well,, Mike. I tend to read books about America’s hidden history because that’s what I’m interested in.

    Truman said “the only thing new is the history you dont know,” and though I lived through the 60s and 70s, finding out what was happening behind the scenes, as opposed to what we were told was happening, is FASCINATING to me.

    Actually, all of the CIA’s history is pretty interesting.

    “Ozzie would spend ten thousand words criticizing Israel, listing an encyclopedic series of links and supporting paragraphs. — Mike

    Um, and this is based on what?

  53. on 16 Aug 2008 at 12:39 pm BrianE

    Mike Devx’s post #50 I think encapsulates my concern about Ozzie’s obsessive cynicism.
    I’m personally sensitive to these criticisms since we are and will be dealing for some time with US motives for deposing Saddam Hussein.
    If the enemies of American power gain more influence, I believe war crimes commissions will be impaneled somewhere, which will be used to further harm American interests.
    At the time, I thought President Bush wouldn’t be re-elected if we failed to find WMD’s in Iraq, since so much of the rationale centered on that argument. Once the WMD argument became obscured, other strategic goals became easier targets also. Had large stockpiles been found, other criticisms would have foundered also. And other goals may have been obtainable- the foremost of which was regime change in Iran.

    This is why it is so important that the arguments that Bush knowingly lied about WMD’s and acted for more sinister reasons need to be disproved, and why it is so important that allegations such as those raised by Susskind be refuted.

    Which brings me back to Ozzie and history.
    If Eisenhower approved the CIA operation in Iran as a tactic to contain communist influence in 1953, the fact that others had different motives is irrelevant. The president directs foreign policy. Ozzie might make the point that Eisenhower was lied to, but I think evidence by Iranians themselves indicates that communists would have gained power through Moseddeq, whether he was a communist or not (which he was not).
    Yes, Britain was not willing to accept the payment offered by Moseddeq for it’s investment in Iran’s oil infrastructure and expertise, or future royalties subsequent to the nationalization, but that is justifiable. Would an equitable settlement been obtainable? Don’t know, because that becomes speculation. But a fact is a negotiating team was sent to Tehran with a proposal that recognized the principle of nationalization but called for the AIOC to market Iran’s oil on a 50-50 profit sharing basis. This proposal was rejected by Mosaddeq in June 1951.

    What motives led U.S. policy makers to overthrow Mosaddeq? It is often argued that the main motive behind the coup was the desire of U.S. policy makers to help U.S. oil companies gain a share in Iranian oil production.(68) On the face of it, this argument has considerable merit. The Eisenhower administration was certainly favourable to U.S. business interests, and the Dulles brothers’ law firm had often represented U.S. oil companies in legal matters. Moreover, the final agreement worked out in 1954 with the Zahedi government gave U.S. companies a 40 Iranian oil production, which had previously been controlled by the British.
    While this view cannot entirely be refuted, it seems more plausible to argue that U.S. policymakers were motivated mainly by fears of a communist takeover in Iran, and that the involvement of U.S. companies was sought mainly to prevent this from occurring. The Cold War was at its height in the early 1950s, and the Soviet Union was viewed as an expansionist power seeking world domination. Eisenhower had made the Soviet threat a key issue in the 1952 elections, accusing the Democrats of being soft on communism and of having “lost China.” Once in power, the new administration quickly sought to put its views into practice: the State Department was purged of homosexuals and suspected communists, steps were taken to strengthen the Western alliance, and initiatives were begun to bolster the Western position in Latin America, the Middle East, and East Asia. Viewed in this context, and coming as it did only two weeks after Eisenhower’s inauguration, the decision to overthrow Mosaddeq appears merely as one more step in the global effort of the Eisenhower administration to block Soviet expansionism. (69)

    http://iran.sa.utoronto.ca/coup/web_files/markcoup.html

    Ozzie, you’re premise of American corporate greed driving American policy is wrong on the face of it.

    Wherever American interests lead, greed does follow, but that is not an American trait, but a human one. We’re living in la-la land if we think that Communist hierarchy didn’t profit from Soviet adventures, and I hope they did, because the lives of the ordinary Soviet citizen certainly didn’t.

    So in the end, we’ll argue about who benefits and whether larger more national interests should succumb to fear that someone will make a profit. American capitalism follows closely behind American security interests, since capitalism is the method we use for economic transactions. Is this inherently bad? No! So at the core, it’s about class envy. But these, in my estimation, are peripheral issues.

    You’re cynicism that a Secret Government drives American policy irrespective of the party in power and the expressed goals of the President is mistaken. Does the government bureaucracy work against the goals of any particular president? I would agree with you there, and the bureaucracy most at fault in my estimation is the State Department. But does that leave the President hostage to some Secret Government? I would argue no.

    You’re premise does remind me of the movie “The President’s Analyst”.

    Ozzie never answered the question whether he considers the US and the former Soviet Union’s actions to be morally equivalent.

  54. on 16 Aug 2008 at 5:30 pm BrianE

    Mike Devx’s post #50 I think encapsulates my concern about Ozzie’s obsessive cynicism.
    I’m personally sensitive to these criticisms since we are and will be dealing for some time with US motives for deposing Saddam Hussein.
    If the enemies of American power gain more influence, I believe war crimes commissions will be impaneled somewhere, which will be used to further harm American interests.
    At the time, I thought President Bush wouldn’t be re-elected if we failed to find WMD’s in Iraq, since so much of the rationale centered on that argument. Once the WMD argument became obscured, other strategic goals became easier targets also. Had large stockpiles been found, other criticisms would have foundered also. And other goals may have been obtainable- the foremost of which was regime change in Iran.

    This is why it is so important that the argument that Bush knowingly lied about WMD’s and acted for more sinister reasons need to be disproved, and why it is so important that allegations such as those raised by Susskind be refuted.

    Which brings me back to Ozzie and history.
    If Eisenhower approved the CIA operation in Iran as a tactic to contain communist influence in 1953, the fact that others had different motives is irrelevant. The president directs foreign policy. Ozzie might make the point that Eisenhower was lied to, but I think evidence by Iranians themselves indicates that communists would have gained power through Moseddeq, whether he was a communist or not (which he was not).

  55. on 16 Aug 2008 at 5:31 pm BrianE

    Yes, Britain was not willing to accept the payment offered by Moseddeq for it’s investment in Iran’s oil infrastructure and expertise, or future royalties subsequent to the nationalization, but that is justifiable. Would an equitable settlement been obtainable? Don’t know, because that becomes speculation. But a fact is a negotiating team was sent to Tehran with a proposal that recognized the principle of nationalization but called for the AIOC to market Iran’s oil on a 50-50 profit sharing basis. This proposal was rejected by Mosaddeq in June 1951.
    What motives led U.S. policy makers to overthrow Mosaddeq? It is often argued that the main motive behind the coup was the desire of U.S. policy makers to help U.S. oil companies gain a share in Iranian oil production.(68) On the face of it, this argument has considerable merit. The Eisenhower administration was certainly favourable to U.S. business interests, and the Dulles brothers’ law firm had often represented U.S. oil companies in legal matters. Moreover, the final agreement worked out in 1954 with the Zahedi government gave U.S. companies a 40 Iranian oil production, which had previously been controlled by the British.
    While this view cannot entirely be refuted, it seems more plausible to argue that U.S. policymakers were motivated mainly by fears of a communist takeover in Iran, and that the involvement of U.S. companies was sought mainly to prevent this from occurring. The Cold War was at its height in the early 1950s, and the Soviet Union was viewed as an expansionist power seeking world domination. Eisenhower had made the Soviet threat a key issue in the 1952 elections, accusing the Democrats of being soft on communism and of having “lost China.” Once in power, the new administration quickly sought to put its views into practice: the State Department was purged of homosexuals and suspected communists, steps were taken to strengthen the Western alliance, and initiatives were begun to bolster the Western position in Latin America, the Middle East, and East Asia. Viewed in this context, and coming as it did only two weeks after Eisenhower’s inauguration, the decision to overthrow Mosaddeq appears merely as one more step in the global effort of the Eisenhower administration to block Soviet expansionism. (69)

    This is a must-read analysis:
    http://iran.sa.utoronto.ca/coup/web_files/markcoup.html

    Ozzie, you’re premise of American corporate greed driving American policy is wrong.

    Wherever American interests lead, greed does follow, but that is not an American trait, but a human one. We’re living in la-la land if we think that Communist hierarchy didn’t profit from Soviet adventures, and I hope they did, because the lives of the ordinary Soviet citizen certainly didn’t.

    So in the end, we’ll argue about who benefits and whether larger more national interests should succumb to fear that someone will make a profit. American capitalism follows closely behind American security interests, since capitalism is the method we use for economic transactions. Is this inherently bad? No! So at the core, it’s about class envy. But these, in my estimation, are peripheral issues.

    You’re cynicism that a Secret Government drives American policy irrespective of the party in power and the expressed goals of the President is mistaken. Does the government bureaucracy work against the goals of any particular president? I would agree with you there, and the bureaucracy most at fault in my estimation is the State Department. But does that leave the President hostage to some Secret Government? I would argue no.

    You’re premise does remind me of the movie “The President’s Analyst”.

    Ozzie never answered the question whether he considers the US and the former Soviet Union’s actions to be morally equivalent.

  56. on 16 Aug 2008 at 5:32 pm BrianE

    Yes, Britain was not willing to accept the payment offered by Moseddeq for it’s investment in Iran’s oil infrastructure and expertise, or future royalties subsequent to the nationalization, but that is justifiable. Would an equitable settlement been obtainable? Don’t know, because that becomes speculation. But a fact is a negotiating team was sent to Tehran with a proposal that recognized the principle of nationalization but called for the AIOC to market Iran’s oil on a 50-50 profit sharing basis. This proposal was rejected by Mosaddeq in June 1951.
    What motives led U.S. policy makers to overthrow Mosaddeq? It is often argued that the main motive behind the coup was the desire of U.S. policy makers to help U.S. oil companies gain a share in Iranian oil production.(68) On the face of it, this argument has considerable merit. The Eisenhower administration was certainly favourable to U.S. business interests, and the Dulles brothers’ law firm had often represented U.S. oil companies in legal matters. Moreover, the final agreement worked out in 1954 with the Zahedi government gave U.S. companies a 40 Iranian oil production, which had previously been controlled by the British.
    While this view cannot entirely be refuted, it seems more plausible to argue that U.S. policymakers were motivated mainly by fears of a communist takeover in Iran, and that the involvement of U.S. companies was sought mainly to prevent this from occurring. The Cold War was at its height in the early 1950s, and the Soviet Union was viewed as an expansionist power seeking world domination. Eisenhower had made the Soviet threat a key issue in the 1952 elections, accusing the Democrats of being soft on communism and of having “lost China.” Once in power, the new administration quickly sought to put its views into practice: the State Department was purged of homosexuals and suspected communists, steps were taken to strengthen the Western alliance, and initiatives were begun to bolster the Western position in Latin America, the Middle East, and East Asia. Viewed in this context, and coming as it did only two weeks after Eisenhower’s inauguration, the decision to overthrow Mosaddeq appears merely as one more step in the global effort of the Eisenhower administration to block Soviet expansionism. (69)

    This is a must-read analysis:
    http://iran.sa.utoronto.ca/coup/web_files/markcoup.html

  57. on 16 Aug 2008 at 5:33 pm BrianE

    Ozzie, you’re premise of American corporate greed driving American policy is wrong.

    Wherever American interests lead, greed does follow, but that is not an American trait, but a human one. We’re living in la-la land if we think that Communist hierarchy didn’t profit from Soviet adventures, and I hope they did, because the lives of the ordinary Soviet citizen certainly didn’t.

    So in the end, we’ll argue about who benefits and whether larger more national interests should succumb to fear that someone will make a profit. American capitalism follows closely behind American security interests, since capitalism is the method we use for economic transactions. Is this inherently bad? No! So at the core, it’s about class envy. But these, in my estimation, are peripheral issues.

    You’re cynicism that a Secret Government drives American policy irrespective of the party in power and the expressed goals of the President is mistaken. Does the government bureaucracy work against the goals of any particular president? I would agree with you there, and the bureaucracy most at fault in my estimation is the State Department. But does that leave the President hostage to some Secret Government? I would argue no.

    You’re premise does remind me of the movie “The President’s Analyst”.

    Ozzie never answered the question whether he considers the US and the former Soviet Union’s actions to be morally equivalent.

  58. on 16 Aug 2008 at 5:56 pm Ymarsakar

    Oz doesn’t have any particular morality or ethical system he considers very true or right, so it doesn’t really matter, now does it.

  59. on 16 Aug 2008 at 6:00 pm Ymarsakar

    If you look at all of Ozzie’s comments above, you will find a vast amount of criticism of America and American gullibility to realpolitik… and very, very little criticism of other countries or their people. In fact, the only direct criticism that I can find occurred here, in Ozzie #17:

    The thing about nihilism is not that it particularly favors a certain viewpoint or what not, but that it hates nations and countries that actually have beliefs that they will fight for. Since nihilism believes that all these causes or what not are false, fake, and not worth it, nihilism believes that to prevent bloodshed and to remake the world in their image, they have to prevent people from believing in things.

    When people have belief in something, they are willing to kill and die for those beliefs.

    I’m criticizing Americans’ ignorance about Unocal’s dealings and geopolitics in general. . I see it for what it is. Others say, YAY!! Look! We’re Being HEROES!!

    So Oz, a follower of nihilism and ultimate entropy, thus must take down sources of belief, and there is no greater belief for people to have faith in than the liberty coming from America.

    It’s not about preventing bad actions or what not. It may be about preventing wars, in that if nobody believes anything, nobody will kill anybody over anything. But all of them are false, nihilism has no justifications for itself, even though it tries to make stuff up.

    It is just this instinct for ultimate entropy, nothing else.

  60. on 16 Aug 2008 at 6:07 pm Ymarsakar

    Well,, Mike. I tend to read books about America’s hidden history because that’s what I’m interested in.

    Here’s the difference, Oz, in case you hadn’t noticed by now.

    Some people want to make the world a better place, and often their methods are mutually exclusive with each other. Some prefer totalitarian security and some prefer liberty without security. Others prefer a more balanced approach.

    You, are only interested in history because of the entertainment value of seeing people suffer. You have no intention of changing things for the better. You have no belief that it can even be changed for the better.

    That is the difference in attitude and the difference in belief which will forever separate you from those other classical liberals interested in American and world history.

    You find entertainment value and glee momentums, in fashions short or long, in seeing good men fall and the weak crushed by the strong who are never held to account. Batman The Dark Knight is only the most recent example you have given of such sentiments, but it is not the only one.

    All you ever focus on is how the strong, the mighty, and the just, like the US, can fall and destroy itself via chaos, entropy, or what not. It is what you are interested in.

    But others like me, are not interested in studying entropy to create more of it.

  61. on 16 Aug 2008 at 6:13 pm Ymarsakar

    BrianE, there is nothing you can say or do that will convince a person to re-arrange or reject his fundamental philosophical axioms.

    That is true whether for American patriots and Russian patriots, or for nihilists and moral relativists.

    All humans believe in things, even if they think they don’t believe in mythologies; they just believe in the truth, which is the history of America’s hidden government moments of human despair.

  62. on 16 Aug 2008 at 6:48 pm BrianE

    In post 54, the quote should begin in the second paragraph from the source I cited. The first paragraph is my take on it.

    And Yarmaskar, I think you also have nailed the underlying philosophy driving Ozzie.

  63. on 17 Aug 2008 at 4:44 am Ozzie

    You’re cynicism that a Secret Government drives American policy irrespective of the party in power and the expressed goals of the President is mistaken- Brian

    Each president inherits the covert actions of the previous president, Brian.

    Read this book and we’ll compare notes.

    http://www.randomhouse.com/doubleday/legacyofashes/legacy.htm

    As of now, I only have you telling me wrong, based on I’m not sure what, and others ascribing motivations, actions, and philosophies that make me realize why it’s probably better NOT to discuss anything of substance on the Internet.

    But as for the continutation of covert actions from president to president. . . .
    I’m only up to Carter and he seems to be the only president who tried to alter the course of the CIA, with devestating results to morale.

    But, for me, it’ssimply fascinating to read the factual record of what really occured behind the scenes, and see how History unfolded.

    Another interesting tidbit:

    Esinehower thought the best defense against Communism in the Middle East would be to sell the struggle as an Islamic Jihad. “We should be everything possible to stress the holy war aspect,” he said..

  64. on 17 Aug 2008 at 4:52 am Ozzie

    “And Yarmaskar, I think you also have nailed the underlying philosophy driving Ozzie” . . Brian

    Ymar knows all and sees all, Brian.

  65. on 17 Aug 2008 at 6:41 am Ozzie

    But does that leave the President hostage to some Secret Government? I would argue no. – Brian

    Theodore Roosevelt said that “Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people,” but Bill Moyers coined the term to describe America after the National Secirity Act of 1947 came into play. As he put it the Secret Government is “an interlocking network of official functionaries, spies, mercenaries, ex-generals, profiteers and superpatriots, who, for a variety of motives, operate outside the legitimate institutions of government. . ”

    Once again, I’d suggest you find a reputable book regarding America’s hidden history and read it.

    And yes, at times, the CIA lied to presidents, such as during Operation Paperclip when they smuggled 700 or so Nazis into the country, including Klaus Barbie. (Operation Paperclip eventually spawned more notorious programs like Operation ARTICHOKE (extreme interrogation and torture) and MK-ULTRA (mind control).
    Another interesting tidbit:

    Ali Abu Hassan, the PLO terrorist reponsible for the murder of the Israeli
    athletes during the 1972 Olympics became one of the CIA’s most reliable sources.

    We dont negotiate with terroirists? Dig a little and you’ll see how ridiculous that statement is.

  66. on 17 Aug 2008 at 7:30 am Ozzie

    American capitalism follows closely behind American security interests, since capitalism is the method we use for economic transactions. Is this inherently bad? No!- Brian E.

    There was a time in U.S history when War profiteering was regarded as a bad thing.

    In fact, Franklin D Roosevelt said he didn’t “want to see a single war millionaire created in the United States as a result of [World War II],” and Henry A. Wallace, one of his vice presidents, wrote an op-ed decrying Americans who were making $$ from the war.

    Ah, but everything old is new again and neither party is immune.

    For your consideration, some more interesting history:

    1937: A small company named Brown & Root (which will later become a division of Halliburton) calls upon Lyndon Johnson to procure $10 million in federal funding for the Mansfield Damn project. The freshman congressman eventually delivers the necessary authorization and funding for the project, which becomes the cornerstone of Brown and Root’s financial empire. In turn, Herman Brown finances Johnson’s political rise. “It was a totally corrupt relationship and it benefited both of them enormously. Brown & Root got rich, and Johnson got power and riches,” LBJ biographer Ronnie Dugger later notes, adding that Johnson “wouldn’t have been in the running without Brown & Root’s money and airplanes.”

    1942: The New York Tribune features a front page story entitled “Hitler’s Angel has $3 million in US bank,” referring to Nazi industrialist Fritz Thyssen and his ties to Union Banking Corporation. Later that year, Union Bank official Prescott Bush, George W. Bush’s grandfather, is charged with “Running Nazi front groups in the United States.”

    1944: Former Vice President Henry A. Wallace writes an Op-ed , discussing war profiteers who are “ruthless” in their “use of deceit or violence” to gain money and power — pointing to those who “hope to have profitable connections with German chemical firms after the war ends.” Newly discovered government documents prove that Prescott Bush’s ties to the Nazis continued until as late as 1951, and that he and his cohorts “routinely attempted to conceal their activities from government investigators.”

    1961: President Eisenhower delivers his farewell address, warning of the military/industrial complex and the potential for a “disastrous rise of misplaced power.” Former GOP strategist Kevin Phillips later chronicles how Bush dynasty founders George H. Walker and Samuel Prescott Bush were “present at the emergence of what became the U.S. military-industrial complex, in which the Bush family has been enmeshed ever since.”

    1963: Lyndon Johnson takes office and Republicans in Congress soon wonder if Brown & Root’s new government contacts aren’t connected to its political contributions to the new president. The company eventually becomes part of a consortium which wins a $380 million contract to build bases, hospitals and airports for the U.S. Navy in South Vietnam. During America’s War on Terror, the Halliburton subsidiary has similar luck in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    1967: The General Accounting Office faults “Vietnam Builders” Brown & Root for accounting lapses; protesters target Brown & Root as a symbol of the “military-industrial complex.” Decades later, historians cite parallels between Halliburton’s hefty Iraq contracts and Vietnam-era controversies, including “allegations of overcharging, sweetheart contracts from the White House and war profiteering.” In 2004, former Army Corps of Engineers contract officer Bunnatine Greenhouse charges that the Pentagon is improperly awarding no-bid contracts to Vice President Dick Cheney’s former company, which is already under investigation for overcharging the government.

    Sept. 11, 2001: The Carlyle Group holds its annual investor conference in Washington, DC. Former Secretary of State James Baker and Shafiq bin Laden, Osama bin Laden’s brother, are in attendance. “The gathering was the perfect metaphor for Washington’s strange affair with Saudi Arabia,” author Robert Baer later writes. Further evidence of this “strange affair” surfaces following the 9/11 attacks. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, when the nation’s airspace is restricted, the White House allows airplanes to pick up Saudi VIPS, including members of the bin Laden family. And when victims’ families file a $1 trillion law suit against the Saudi royal family, James Baker’s law firm represents the Saudis.

    From the Chicago Tribune, 2002:
    Pipeline Politics Taint US War By Salim Muwakkil
    Chicago Tribune
    March 18, 2002

    “. . . The Asia Times reported in January that the U.S. is developing “a network of multiple Caspian pipelines,” and that people close to the Bush administration stand to benefit.

    For example, the proposed Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, linking Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey, is represented by the law firm Baker & Botts. The principal attorney is James Baker, former secretary of state and chief spokesman for the Bush campaign in the Florida vote controversy.

    In 1997, the now disgraced Enron Corp. conducted the feasibility study for the $2.5 billion Trans-Caspian pipeline being built under a joint venture between Turkmenistan, Bechtel Corp. and General Electric, the article noted. There are many other connections, too numerous to recount here. No wonder the rest of the world is a bit skeptical about our war on evildoers. “

  67. on 17 Aug 2008 at 2:23 pm Ymarsakar

    Ozzie is at least honest about his preferences. I don’t accuse Oz of trying to hide himself or what not. Some people have shame about their nihilistic beliefs or philosophies, but Oz doesn’t particularly care one way or another.

    You can respect him for the level of fervent belief he holds in his philosophies.

    But you can’t respect his actual beliefs, for they are tortuous and bad.

    Book is right that while many Leftists and ideologues will try to hide their preferences and beliefs beneath sarcasm and agent provocateur actions, Oz won’t do that.

    And I show my respect for that by not debating and arguing the actual research vs facts that Ozzie has mentioned.

    For if he will cut to the chase and make no bones about his philosophies, I will not try to cover up my reactions to his beliefs with factual arguments or what not. They would be a waste of time for both of us.

    BrianE, that does not mean I think your efforts are a waste. If you benefit in some fashion from researching, reading, and mentally exercising on such matters, then good for you. At one time, I also needed to delve into the histories just to check up on what the Left were claiming.

    Oz,

    You are probably annoyed by people calling you a Leftist or saying you have Leftist beliefs or belong to a Leftist group or what not. You think yourself on the fence, neutral, or in some cases an equal opportunity offender.

    When I say the “Left”, I do not mean a particular political persuasion nor do I mean a particular ideological persuasion either. I mean it in the sense that they are an army, an army composed of many allies and alliances and different factions. The Democrats are part of the Left. But the Left does not consist solely of Democrats, Socialists, Marxists, or what not.

    My field of focus are in the areas of propaganda, war, psychology, and violence.

    To a regular person, who may be interested in normal things like politics, one might say, when they say “Left” or “Leftist”, they can only mean as much as their limited horizons allow them to mean. But I see deeper into such things.

    But I still doubt you actually accept the totality of what it means in terms of introspection, Oz, that your philosophies impact upon.

    z

  68. on 17 Aug 2008 at 2:23 pm Ymarsakar

    There’s a comment that is being askismet, Book, on this thread. Please choose one copy of the comment to authorize.

    Thanks.

  69. on 18 Aug 2008 at 4:58 am Ozzie

    “You can respect him for the level of fervent belief he holds in his philosophies. . ”

    “But I see deeper into such things.”- Ymar

    I know you THINK you do, Ymar, and I find it very entertaining. But, alas, you can’t even get my gender right.

  70. on 18 Aug 2008 at 9:02 am BrianE

    Ozzie,
    The point I’ve been trying to make using the one example of the CIA covert operations in Iran, is that your conclusions (or those of the author’s) that the real reason we deposed Mossedeq was for oil is debatable.

    Please read this short article and tell me if it is consistent with the “Legacy of Ashes” account.

    http://iran.sa.utoronto.ca/coup/web_files/markcoup.html

    The main diplomatic records used for this study are those available at the U.S. National Archives and the British Public Records Office. The people interviewed include all but one of the CIA officers directly involved in the coup who are alive today (one refused to speak on the subject), five CIA officers who worked on Iran at CIA headquarters in Washington at the time of the coup, two of the three most senior U.S. foreign service officers in Iran at the time (the third, Ambassador Roy Henderson, is now dead), two other foreign service officers and the U.S. Naval Attaché stationed in Tehran at the time, the two Assistant Secretaries of State with responsibility for the Middle East in 1951-1953, two of the key British participants, and many knowledgeable Iranians. The author between the summer of 1983 and the summer of 1985 conducted these interviews. Because of the sensitive nature of this topic, the names of many key sources and participants cannot be revealed. Except where noted, all details reported here that were obtained in interviews have been corroborated with a second source to ensure their accuracy.

    Using this scholarship the author reached this conclusion to the point you were making:

    …it seems more plausible to argue that U.S. policymakers were motivated mainly by fears of a communist takeover in Iran, and that the involvement of U.S. companies was sought mainly to prevent this from occurring. The Cold War was at its height in the early 1950s, and the Soviet Union was viewed as an expansionist power seeking world domination. Eisenhower had made the Soviet threat a key issue in the 1952 elections, accusing the Democrats of being soft on communism and of having “lost China.”

    This is what the CIA Center for the Study of Intelligence had to say:

    But these few plusses do not overcome the essential fact that Legacy of Ashes is a narrowly-focused and biased account. In his preface, Weiner claims to believe that the intelligence profession is critical to national security, but he is likely to have done considerable damage, as the people who take up the profession will, I fear, have to deal with his inaccuracies and skewed perspectives for years to come.

    As to the gap that we in CIA’s History Staff hoped to see filled, my hunch, and hope, is that Weiner’s work will soon be replaced by that of a historian who has seriously attempted to get at more of the “whole truth” of intelligence, rather than carefully selected bits intended to highlight an interpretation. Then we will have a history that we can learn from to improve and advance the important work of our nation’s security.

    https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol51no3/legacy-of-ashes-the-history-of-cia.html

    If there is a flaw in Legacy of Ashes, it is that Weiner’s scorn for the old boys who ran the place is so unrelenting and pervasive that it tends to detract from his overall argument. He is unwilling to concede that the agency’s leaders may have acted from patriotic motives or that the CIA ever did anything right.

  71. on 18 Aug 2008 at 9:55 am Ozzie

    The point I’ve been trying to make using the one example of the CIA covert operations in Iran, is that your conclusions (or those of the author’s) that the real reason we deposed Mossedeq was for oil is debatable- Brian

    Well, Brian, admittedly, I’ve only read two books that have had to deal with the Iranian coup, and both point to oil as the true underlyhing cause.

    The fact that you are debating this pretty much proves that this is debatable. Ha!

    But, yes, if you search for links proving my sources are supsect, you’re going to find them. “Legacy of Ashes,” however, is meticulously researched and highly-lauded, though I can certainly see why some, particularly those affiliated with the CIA, find fault.

    The other book, “All the Shah’s Men” though not as professional, included a confession from the British agent who pushed Eisenhower to back the coup, in which he states that oil, not Communism, was the real reason for the coup. (The agent wrote a memoir about his involvement, and author Stephen Kinzer included the confession in his book)

    If you or anyone else wants to believe that the fight against Communism was the reason for the Iranian and subsequent U.S.-sponsored coups, I’m certainly not going to change your mind.

    At this point, you’re not going to change mine, either.

    But then again, I think that the past is prologue, and others would prefer not to worry about past sins, as if they have no relevance on anything that’s occuring today. Or they look for reasons to whitewash what occured, so they can continue to buy into whatever myths help them to believe whatever it is they believe.

    (Hell. . . Look at how many people believe the Camelot Myth or buy into the notion that Obama is a White Kinight who will charge into the White House and change everything).

    Could I change their mind? Nope. I just want to search for the truth and not blindly buy into bullshit, from either the right or the left.

  72. on 18 Aug 2008 at 4:23 pm Ymarsakar

    I know you THINK you do, Ymar, and I find it very entertaining. But, alas, you can’t even get my gender right.

    I was the first one, perhaps only one, to correct people that Oz had mentioned she was a she, not a he. But since you didn’t pay any attention to that or correct us or actually make a relevant comment on this subject, why do you think I would spend my time on things that are obviously irrelevant to you, Oz?

    When you make an issue of your gender, be assured I will pounce all over it. But until then, it’s just like any other thing you ignore, cause it’s convenient for you, until it isn’t.

    I know you THINK you do, Ymar

    You can try to convince yourself that I’m wrong and you are right, but you do not even attempt to make an argument about the merits of my claims and statements. You accept them as the de facto truth, for what else can you do?

  73. on 18 Aug 2008 at 4:30 pm Ozzie

    You can try to convince yourself that I’m wrong and you are right, but you do not even attempt to make an argument about the merits of my claims and statements. -Ymar

    I ignore your comments because they are silly.

    If you want to pretend to be an expert on me, have at it.

    As I said, it’s very entertaining.

  74. on 18 Aug 2008 at 4:34 pm Ymarsakar

    I ignore your comments because they are silly.

    You ignore my arguments because you cannot best them. And you never could, even though you tried.

  75. on 18 Aug 2008 at 4:38 pm Ymarsakar

    Besides, whenever your philosophical beliefs are changed on their fundamentals, rather than the peripheral superficial layers like the ones BrianE has touched upon, you call challenges to your core beliefs “silly”, for there is no other way it could be for your philosophy and beliefs to function.

    Brian agrees with me and sees your core beliefs for what they are. Unchangeable by him, yet he tries to continue things with you because he has the courage to face challenges to his own positions and attempt to forge through them and make his own arguments stronger for it by adhering to the political philosophy of Jefferson when it comes to debating ideas.

    It matters to him, one way or another. It doesn’t to you. And I’ve provided plenty of explanations for why.

  76. on 18 Aug 2008 at 5:08 pm suek

    The problem I see, Ozzie, is that you state that you are looking for “the truth”. In fact, there seem to be many truths, and what you do is choose the one that you want to believe.
    I haven’t done the research you’ve done, and haven’t read your favorite book, so I’ll just assume that it’s factual. If so, then the Brits wanted the US to pull their chesnuts out of the fire because they needed oil. I’ll accept that as a truth. Then the Brits deliberately manipulated Eisenhower by convincing him that Iran might go Communist because they knew that that was an argument that would convince Eisenhower. Ok…so _that’s_ a truth. Then you jump the gun and say “so the _real_ – the _true_ reason we overthrew the Iranian government was because of oil”. But that’s _not_ true. It may be an original cause, but it was _not_ the motivation for the US getting involved – so you don’t really want the truth, you want to allege base commercial motives to the US, (Not that I think commercial motives are necessarily base, but that’s a different issue.) when in fact the motivation of the US – or at least of the President of the US who made the decision – was fear of the spread of Communism, not the desire for oil.

  77. on 18 Aug 2008 at 6:50 pm Ozzie

    It may be an original cause, but it was _not_ the motivation for the US getting involved – so you don’t really want the truth, you want to allege base commercial motives to the US,- suek

    And I’m telling you it’s not alleged.

    To me, it’s the truth, based on what I’ve read.

    To people who only read what they find via a Google search, it’s not.

    But, once again, in the end, the ultimate Truth is what God sees when he looks at a situtaion.

    Some people believe that He condones the U.S coups in Iran and Guatemala and Chile and countless other places, along with all the horror that followed.

    I, on the other hand, highly doubt it.

  78. on 18 Aug 2008 at 6:51 pm Ozzie

    Brian agrees with me and sees your core beliefs for what they are. – Ymar

    Silly!

  79. on 18 Aug 2008 at 7:18 pm Ozzie

    when in fact the motivation of the US – or at least of the President of the US who made the decision – was fear of the spread of Communism, not the desire for oil- suel

    I’ve said that from the beginning. I think Eisenhower acted out of fear and that he was fooled.

    But I still believe that oil was the motivation to trick Eisenhower in the first place.

    Other people obviously don’t believe it was.

    But onto the bigger picture:

    The CIA was formed as an intelligence gathering service and by 1953, got into the cloak and dagger business – overthrowing democratically-elected leaders, engaging in assassination, installing brutal secret police forces, kidnapping Americans and performing experiments on them and smuggling Nazis into the country.

    Communism was evil, but, in my mind, so was all of this.

  80. on 19 Aug 2008 at 9:29 am suek

    >>I’ve said that from the beginning. I think Eisenhower acted out of fear and that he was fooled.

    But I still believe that oil was the motivation to trick Eisenhower in the first place.>>

    It may have been, but that doesn’t make it _his_ motivation. You’re accusing the US of doing something for a particular reason. That’s false – the reason you’re using was _Britain’s_ motivation, not that of the US.

    >>The CIA was formed as an intelligence gathering service and by 1953, got into the cloak and dagger business – overthrowing democratically-elected leaders, engaging in assassination, installing brutal secret police forces, kidnapping Americans and performing experiments on them and smuggling Nazis into the country.>>

    Again, accepting that this is fact (and I don’t know that it is) it assumes that the administration knew and approved of the activity. If it did not, then it may be responsible for lack of oversight, but I’d say it was not responsible for the illicit acts. If the administration _knew_ of these actions, then it _was_ responsible for them.

    By the way…if you read Timmerman’s book “Shadow Warriors”, you might find support for your theory. In my opinion, the book shows Bush’s biggest failure – that of not taking control of various organizations which were seething with Clinton appointees who were determined to a) cause Bush’s agenda to fail and b) to effect agendas _they_ chose instead.

  81. on 19 Aug 2008 at 9:57 am BrianE

    Ozzie,

    To people who only read what they find via a Google search, it’s not.

    Ouch! By the way, did you read the article I linked.
    As an incentive, it’s not very flattering toward US policy. Would Mossedeq fallen to the Tudeh party at some future date without US intervention? Probably, since the Soviet Union was known to not play nice either.
    If you read the Iranian NIE for 1955, gains in Soviet expansion still were a concern, though the report acknowledged that the Tudeh party had received a setback when communist inflitration in the military had been uncovered.
    It’s still popular in intellectual circles to minimize any threat that communism posed to the world or American interests and was merely the foil to American imperialism.
    If I understand the thrust of your argument, it’s that the CIA throughout history has not represented American democratic interests, but American corporate interests of greed and imperialism.
    And while you’re willing to give our elected leaders a pass as being duped by this secret corporate government, that doesn’t in your mind, make the American policies any more noble.
    I’m kind of with you from the perspective that I personally resent the idea of America sticking its nose in other countries business. The problem with this is that the other foreign governments whose expressed goal was to bury us didn’t share this attitude. The idea that Soviet expansionism was benign would have been dangerous and deadly then, as is the idea that enemies of democracy aren’t working to undermine us today.
    If war is diplomacy by other means, then the CIA was stealth diplomacy short of war. As distasteful as it seems, covert wars were waged around the globe to counter Soviet expansionism. These covert operations (think proxy battles) were no doubt less lethal than military operations.
    Looking back, it’s fairly obvious that persons dedicated to pursuing goals using either soft power or hard power are going to come up with some fairly reprehensible plans. After all, war isn’t about morality, but about power. It’s about maximizing harm to the enemy with the least amount of harm to yourself. For the most part, our leaders have resisted the urge to try out some of the more amoral plans concocted, though some truly bizarre ideas did make it through– think MKULTRA.
    Anyway, back to Iran. After the oil settlement was reached in 1954, oil production increased, as did revenues to the Iranian government. Prior to the coup, the highest level of oil production and direct revenue to Iran, was reached in 1950; AIOC (Anglo-Iranian Oil Company) then produced about 35 million cubic meters of oil and paid to Iran in taxes and royalties about $44.7 million (1954 dollars). Iran’s receipts for the same level of production in 1957 was $175 million. Iran received about $385 million in revenue from 1954-57.
    The Shah was a weak, autocratic ruler that did much for Iran, but through personal failings drove opposing parties into the Islamic fundamentalist camp. We have Jimmy Carter to thank for the success of the Islamic revolution in 1979.

  82. on 19 Aug 2008 at 10:28 am Ozzie

    It may have been, but that doesn’t make it _his_ motivation. You’re accusing the US of doing something for a particular reason. That’s false – the reason you’re using was _Britain’s_ motivation, not that of the US. — Brian

    I’m saying that the motivation for the coup in Iran was oil. I’ve said that I believe that Eisenhower was tricked, but it doesn’t change my belief that the primary motivation for the coup was oil.

    This is what I believe: If Mossadeq had not nationalized Iran’s oil, he wouldn’t have been considered a “communist threat” and there would have been no coup.

    You can believe otherwise. But I would suggest that if you are truly interested in the 1953 coup, you read a recent book instead of doing a Google search.

    “Ouch! By the way, did you read the article I linked.” — Brian

    I did. I also read what you posted re: Legacy of Ashes.

    It doesn’t change my mind about the coups in Iran or Guatemala, however.

    Or make me any less certain that the CIA should have stuck with intelligence gathering and have never have gotten into the coup, assassination and “secret war” business in the first place.

  83. on 19 Aug 2008 at 10:39 am Ozzie

    For the most part, our leaders have resisted the urge to try out some of the more amoral plans concocted, though some truly bizarre ideas did make it through– think MKULTRA.– Brian

    MK-Ultra was truly bizarre. If you think today’s Dr. Strangeloves have given up on the whole mind control thingie, you haven”t been paying attention.

    DARPA has been devloping ways to keep soldiers awake for days at a time and I just read this tidbit today:

    “Other questions raised by controlling the mind: ‘How can we make people trust us more?’ ‘What if we could help the brain to remove fear or pain?’ ‘Is there a way to make the enemy obey our commands?’… As cognitive neuroscience and related technologies become more pervasive, using technology for nefarious purposes becomes easier.”

    http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/08/minding-mental-minefields/

  84. on 19 Aug 2008 at 10:45 am Ozzie

    By the way…if you read Timmerman’s book “Shadow Warriors”, you might find support for your theory. In my opinion, the book shows Bush’s biggest failure – that of not taking control of various organizations which were seething with Clinton appointees who were determined to a) cause Bush’s agenda to fail and b) to effect agendas _they_ chose instead.- Brian. . Thanks for the tip.

    I just came across an author who says what I’ve been thinking forever – that the Democrat Vs Republican debate is a simply a smoke screen and unless Americans wake up, we’re going to be in deep doo-doo. Oh, and that what we’re doing to our soldiers is “morally corrisive.”

    From a Bill Moyers interview:

    ANDREW BACEVICH: One of the great lies about American politics is that Democrats genuinely subscribe to a set of core convictions that make Democrats different from Republicans. And the same thing, of course, applies to the other party. It’s not true. I happen to define myself as a conservative.

    Well, what do conservatives say they stand for? Well, conservatives say they stand for balanced budgets. Small government. The so called traditional values.

    Well, when you look back over the past 30 or so years, since the rise of Ronald Reagan, which we, in many respects, has been a conservative era in American politics, well, did we get small government?

    Do we get balanced budgets? Do we get serious as opposed to simply rhetorical attention to traditional social values? The answer’s no. Because all of that really has simply been part of a package of tactics that Republicans have employed to get elected and to – and then to stay in office.

    BILL MOYERS: And, yet, you say that the prime example of political dysfunction today is the Democratic Party in relation to Iraq.

    ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, I may be a conservative, but I can assure you that, in November of 2006, I voted for every Democrat I could possibly come close to. And I did because the Democratic Party, speaking with one voice, at that time, said that, “Elect us. Give us power in the Congress, and we will end the Iraq War.”

    And the American people, at that point, adamantly tired of this war, gave power to the Democrats in Congress. And they absolutely, totally, completely failed to follow through on their commitment. Now, there was a lot of posturing. But, really, the record of the Democratic Congress over the past two years has been – one in which, substantively, all they have done is to appropriate the additional money that enables President Bush to continue that war.

    BILL MOYERS: And you say the promises of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi prove to be empty. Reid and Pelosi’s commitment to forcing a change in policy took a backseat to their concern to protect the Democratic majority.

    ANDREW BACEVICH: Could anybody disagree with that?

    BILL MOYERS: You say, and this is another one of my highlighted sentences, that “Anyone with a conscience sending soldiers back to Iraq or Afghanistan for multiple combat tours, while the rest of the country chills out, can hardly be seen as an acceptable arrangement. It is unfair. Unjust. And morally corrosive.” And, yet, that’s what we’re doing. ”

    http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/transcript1.html

  85. on 19 Aug 2008 at 11:10 am suek

    Ozzie….

    Do you personally know any US military personnel?

    Define “corrosive”.

    “That which does not kill us makes us stronger’

    The fact that the rest of the country chills out is not relevant to what improves or depleats the military. The military does _not_ want your chilling out citizen in its forces – we did that in Vietnam, and it was more detrimental to our forces than had the military done the job with all volunteers.

    What concerns me is the cultural gap between the military and the civilian US citizen. I fear for our future. I’d like to see young men required to serve for some period, but then you’re in the situation once again of unwilling recruits, and you have a court system in place that is unlikely to support the draconian measures that might be necessary to enforce discipline. That would not be good, and the military is not a social service, much as we could benefit by its being so.

    In other words, the military has _men_ – no matter what their age. The “chilled out citizen” is still a “youth”. Not a good thing, imo.

  86. on 19 Aug 2008 at 11:16 am Ymarsakar

    Everything is relative to Oz, except Oz’s truth.

  87. on 19 Aug 2008 at 11:17 am Ymarsakar

    THe basic fundamental difference is that Oz thinks the US and Soviet actions weren’t very differentiable due to Democrat and Republican similaries, as Oz sees it. This means that Oz’s truth is differentiable, easily, from all the lies told by Oz’s political opponents and philosophical challengers.

  88. on 20 Aug 2008 at 7:47 am Ozzie

    Do you personally know any US military personnel’ – suel

    My father fought in World War II and my brother-in-law fought in Vietnam, but right now, i only know one person who served in Iraq who came home and went to school to become a state trooper. He was being sent back to Iraq, but someone pulled strings and he is now out of the military.

    Oh, and he’s changed his mind about Iraq, too.

    Define “corrosive”. Suek

    With frequent deployments, stop-loss orders, etc. , we’re asking far too much of our military, with a Pentgon study reporting that the military is stretched too thin.

    Many Op-Eds I’ve read about the situation Georgia say that it revealed just how over-extended the U.S. military is.

    But as to “corrosive”

    “Since 2003, the total number of personnel diagnosed with PTSD has reached nearly 40,000, according to statistics provided by the Army.. . . But military officials have long acknowledged the actual number isn’t known because many troops, leery of the stigma attached to mental health issues, don’t report having problems.”

    “That which does not kill us makes us stronger’ – suek

    Since you’ve mentioned it, suicide among military personel is on the rise, as well.

  89. on 20 Aug 2008 at 8:10 am Ozzie

    THe basic fundamental difference is that Oz thinks the US and Soviet actions weren’t very differentiable due to Democrat and Republican similaries, as Oz sees it. — Ymar

    I’m guessing that there is plenty of blame and stupidity to go around, and that trying to dress any of this up as good guys vs bad guys is childish.

    If you’re a Republican the trick is to make Bush/McCain look stellar and if you’re a Democrat, the trick is to make the Clinton/Obama look wise, but none of that is terribly honest.

    Today, Tom Friedman used a metaphor that I found very interesting:

    “If the conflict in Georgia were an Olympic event, the gold medal for brutish stupidity would go to the Russian prime minister, Vladimir Putin. The silver medal for bone-headed recklessness would go to Georgia’s president, Mikheil Saakashvili, and the bronze medal for rank short-sightedness would go to the Clinton and Bush foreign policy teams. ”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/opinion/20friedman.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

    What

  90. on 20 Aug 2008 at 8:58 am BrianE

    Yeah, it’s all about stupidity, except for this:

    Our century is noted for its bloody wars. World War I saw 9 mil-
    lion people killed in battle, an incredible record that was surpassed
    within a few decades by the 15 million battle deaths of World War II.
    Even the numbers killed in 20th-century revolutions and civil wars
    have set historical records. In total, about 35,654,000 people have
    died in this century’s international and domestic wars, revolutions,
    and violent conflicts.
    Yet, even more unbelievable than these vast numbers killed in war
    is a shocking fact. The number of people killed by totalitarian or
    extreme authoritarian governments already far exceeds that for all
    wars, civil and international. Indeed, this number already approxi-
    mates the number that might be killed in a nuclear war.
    The table provides the relevant totals and classifies them by
    type of government (definitions provided by Freedom House, a New-York-
    based human-rights group) and war. By “killed is meant the direct or
    indirect killing by government officials, or government acquiescence
    in killing others.

    http://www.fortfreedom.org/h10.htm

    Communist governments were responsible for the deaths of 95 million people. Free governments were responsible for .8 million deaths.

    Call me childish, but it isn’t very hard to dress this up as good guys vs bad guys.

  91. on 20 Aug 2008 at 9:53 am Ymarsakar

    “Since 2003, the total number of personnel diagnosed with PTSD has reached nearly 40,000, according to statistics provided by the Army.. . . But military officials have long acknowledged the actual number isn’t known because many troops, leery of the stigma attached to mental health issues, don’t report having problems.”

    The last sentence re-confirms the state of progress that the military has worked hard to usher into reality, the reality of getting more people to report PTSD so that they can be treated after the fact as well as before the fact by increasing awareness and reducing denial of and delusion on the problem.

  92. on 20 Aug 2008 at 9:54 am Ymarsakar

    Oz is unable to see beyond the fictions and superficialities of convenient truths and facts. All facts have more than one interpretation, except in Oz’s morally relative and subjective criteria for judging reality. Then, Oz’s interpretation is the only true interpretation, you see.

  93. on 20 Aug 2008 at 10:02 am Ozzie

    The number of people killed by totalitarian or
    extreme authoritarian governments already far exceeds that for all
    wars, civil and international.. – Brian

    When I was talking about good guys vs bad guys, I was talking about what was happening in Georgia, where it looks as if there is plenty of blame to go around, starting with Georgia’s tie-gobbling president.

    But yes, Totalitarian and authoritarian governments are HORRIBLE. Which is why it’s s shame the U.S. propped so many of them up.

    I grew up believing that Russia and China were the bad guys and that America was a champion of freedom and democracy around the world.

    I was SHOCKED to learn otherwise.

    I’ve actually read estimates that U.S inteventions led to the death of millions. I could Google and Google to find all sorts of things. But how can I be sure what the truth is?

    Books are better, Brian. I promise!

  94. on 20 Aug 2008 at 10:06 am Ozzie

    Oz’s morally relative and subjective criteria for judging reality- Ymar

    Ah. But you see, while the search for Truth is the noblest endeavor, it’s very difficult to uncover the Truth, which is what God sees when he views a situation.

    Humans are fallbile, so what rings true for one might not ring true for another.

    God knows the truth, however. Thank God!

  95. on 20 Aug 2008 at 10:49 am Ymarsakar

    It’s not so difficult for one such as Oz, obviously. All others are wrong, misguided, or deceived except the one and only.

  96. on 20 Aug 2008 at 11:13 am BrianE

    I’ve actually read estimates that U.S inteventions led to the death of millions. I could Google and Google to find all sorts of things. But how can I be sure what the truth is?

    Go ahead, I’d be curious to see the source.

  97. on 20 Aug 2008 at 11:24 am Ozzie

    It’s not so difficult for one such as Oz, obviously. – Ymar

    Actually, it’s very difficult for me to know what’s true and what isnt true, Ymar.

    I think the truth is very difficult to decipher, though I can say what I believe to be true, with the understanding that anyone with a computer can find evidence to the contrary. God knows the truth. With Google, it’s hit and miss.

    I’ve read that MILLONS have died as the result of CIA coups and the dictatorships we’ve installed, but is that the truth? If it depends on who you ask, how can it be the truth?

    It is great fun, however, when people uncover evidence that challenges long-standing myths.

    From Christopher Columbus’ log:

    “They willingly traded everything they owned…. They were well-built, with good bodies and handsome features…. They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane…. They would make fine servants…. With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.”- Christopher Columbus on the Arawak Indians

    I was taught that this guy was the type of guy a girl could look up to.

    But, as far as I’m concenred, that wasn’t the truth, either.

  98. on 20 Aug 2008 at 11:44 am Ozzie

    I’ve actually read estimates that U.S inteventions led to the death of millions. I could Google and Google to find all sorts of things. But how can I be sure what the truth is?

    Go ahead, I’d be curious to see the source.- Brian

    The Source I was thinking of was former CIA honcho John Stockwell .

    In 1987, he estimated that at minimum, 6 million people in the Congo, Indonesia, Vietnam and other third world died as a result of CIA interventions.

    That number would be significantly higher today.

    You can listen to him on You Tube

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9VxnCBD9W4

    Or read a copy of this lecture:

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4068.htm

    This is just one example, but I now expect you to look at the videos next to this and/or look for ways to discredit him. So, what’s the point?

    One Bonus: He urges people to actively seek the truth by reading books.

    My advice is stick with declassified information that has been proven and stay away from speculation.

  99. on 20 Aug 2008 at 12:03 pm Ymarsakar

    I was SHOCKED to learn otherwise.

    Yes, you were shocked once you realized the truth, because obviously once you realized the truth, you no longer became fallible and prone to mistakes in holding such truth.

    Although why one would think having believed false logic and false events to be true, this would produce the requisite virtues and habits of good judgment, ethical behavior, and solid epistemology to decide on other issues of reality, is unknown.

  100. on 20 Aug 2008 at 12:05 pm Ymarsakar

    I was taught that this guy was the type of guy a girl could look up to.

    If you believe that a guy who miscalculated the diameter of the world and discovered a continent by accident thinking it was some place else, was the kind of person you should look up to, then by all means. But it was not your history teachers that mislead you, for they never claimed that Columbus knew where he was going or how far he was from land.

  101. on 20 Aug 2008 at 12:15 pm Ymarsakar

    It is great fun, however, when people uncover evidence that challenges long-standing myths.

    Like the myth that the surge was going to fail because Bush was just wasting blood and treasure to stay the course?

    No, some myths are more inconvenient than others, aren’t they, Oz.

  102. on 20 Aug 2008 at 12:17 pm Ymarsakar

    This is just one example, but I now expect you to look at the videos next to this and/or look for ways to discredit him. So, what’s the point?

    The point is simple, given that you have irrefutably given the ability to determine truth unto God, this excuses you when you make mistakes, as is natural. When it is hit or miss on Google and you use the sources and research and thoughts of others and repeat their claims, who is to say that you are wrong or right?

    There is no point, that is exactly it, for moral and intellectual relativism leads ultimately to nihilism and nihilism ultimately leads to nothing.

  103. on 20 Aug 2008 at 12:27 pm Ozzie

    It is great fun, however, when people uncover evidence that challenges long-standing myths. – Me

    Like the myth that the surge was going to fail because Bush was just wasting blood and treasure to stay the course?

    No, some myths are more inconvenient than others, aren’t they, Oz.- Ymar

    Is this a long-standing myth that has been proven to be false?

    But hey, since you brought it up: I believe that ARE wasting blood and treasure in Iraq .

    And I also believe that our rampant spending as increased our risk, as one of the “I.O.U.S.A.,” experts put it, at “of being held hostage by foreign lenders.” (Can you say China, boys and girls).

    You obviously believe otherwise, Ymar.

    I remember all the braying over G.W. Bush in his flight suit and the Mission Accomplished banner and the fall of Saddam’s statue, where peoepl were laughing at the naysayers. . . And I thought, “Not so fast. . . ”

    I’m thinking the same thing now.

  104. on 20 Aug 2008 at 12:30 pm Ozzie

    who is to say that you are wrong or right?- Ymar

    That’s pretty much my point, Ymar.

    I can only say what I believe to be true.

    It’s hard to decipher what is REALLY true.

  105. on 20 Aug 2008 at 12:36 pm Ymarsakar

    It’s hard to decipher what is REALLY true.

    I see. So Brian and others of like mind can take your claims of deaths and American actions as just that. Claims that you yourself don’t truly believe or can substantiate or defend.

    It is a definite clarification that had you lived during a time when the top intellectuals, government officials, and writers sought to uphold the status quo rather than undermine it, that you would have been a Crown Loyalist and Conservative, Oz.

    I believe that ARE wasting blood and treasure in Iraq .

    As I said, some myths are more inconvenient to dispel than others, Oz. No matter how much you might protest that you enjoy seeing the status quo line being challenged by new facts and arguments and the truth. In reality, what you really value is seeing the progress of humanity sabotaged and destroyed.

    All the traditions and beliefs that uphold civilization and progress and security, you enjoy to see challenged. All the traditions and myths, like the MSM’s communal mind decision on Iraq, are things you agree with and seek to maintain and protect.

    You’re not against the status quo, Oz. You’re just against good things happening as the human species progress from unenlightened to a state of being more enlightened.

  106. on 20 Aug 2008 at 12:37 pm Ymarsakar

    Is this a long-standing myth that has been proven to be false?

    About as long standing as your belief about Bush and the Carrier landing.

  107. on 20 Aug 2008 at 1:00 pm Ozzie

    I see. So Brian and others of like mind can take your claims of deaths and American actions as just that. Claims that you yourself don’t truly believe or can substantiate or defend- Ymar

    Oy! Hopefully Brian has better critical reading skills than you do, Ymar.

    but then again,he’s the one who asked me to share what I’d read.

    In case you missed it:

    Brian: Go ahead, I’d be curious to see the source.

    I’ve suggested that he read books based on declassified information and not rely on Google or speculation.

    “But it was not your history teachers that mislead you, for they never claimed that Columbus knew where he was going or how far he was from land.” _ Ymar

    I get that you’ve become on Expert on ME, but now youre an expert on my elementary school, too? Where I come from, we celebrated Columbus Day, not “Some Selfish Schmuck Day.”

  108. on 20 Aug 2008 at 1:03 pm Ozzie

    About as long standing as your belief about Bush and the Carrier landing.” – -Ymar

    I didnt realize that Bush landing on that aircraft carrier was a myth, I thought that was a fact.

    But, now that you mention it a substantial amount of myth-making came from the press.

    My favorites:

    “The president has to meet a testosterone standard that appeals to women but does not offend men. George W. Bush succeeds with both and that drives Democrats crazy. They’ve made fools of themselves with their churlish criticism of his landing on the deck of the USS Lincoln, but they can’t let it go. George W. was a hottie in his flight suit. He was the victorious commander, and most of all he looked at home with himself. He glowed with the pride born of authenticity, declaring the war over and thanking all those appreciative sailors on the decks of the Lincoln.” — Susan Fields, the Washington Times

    “I turned on the news. And there was the president, landing on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, stepping out of a fighter jet in that amazing uniform, looking–how to put it?–really hot. Also presidential, of course. Not to mention credible as commander in chief. But mostly “hot,” as in virile, sexy and powerful.”
    Lisa Schiffren, the Wall Street Journal
    (Schiffren also praised Bush for using “overwhelming military force to vanquish a truly evil foe,” and for “facing down balking former ‘allies,’” and implied that it was ridiculous that “he is not taken seriously as a foreign-policy president.”)

    And James Wolcott addressed the media coverage for Vanity Fair:

    “One of the more cringe-inducing TV moments in recent memory was Matthews and G. Gordon Liddy sprouting rhetorical woodies over the spectacle of Bush on the carrier deck in his flight suit, his parachute harness showcasing the presidential bulge — or, to use Liddy’s inimitable phrase, “his manly characteristic.” One guy to another, Liddy put Matthews wise. “You know, all those women who say size doesn’t count, they’re all liars. Check that out.”

    Matthews: “And I’ve got to say why do the Democrats, as you say, want to keep advertising this guy’s greatest moment?”

    Liddy: “Look, he’s coming across as a, well, as women would call in my show saying, what a stud. . .”

  109. on 20 Aug 2008 at 4:51 pm Ymarsakar

    I didnt realize that Bush landing on that aircraft carrier was a myth, I thought that was a fact.

    Legends are created from real events, even if they get the details wrong. Why would myths function differently?

  110. on 20 Aug 2008 at 4:53 pm Ymarsakar

    But, now that you mention it a substantial amount of myth-making came from the press.

    You believe in those producers of deception, such as the MSM, far more than any of us, Oz. There is no point in criticizing them, when they are not the problem.

    I get that you’ve become on Expert on ME, but now youre an expert on my elementary school, too? Where I come from, we celebrated Columbus Day, not “Some Selfish Schmuck Day.”

    If the sum total of intellectual discourse to you is about some subject you learned in elementary school, then I doubt you have much to offer on this score.

  111. on 20 Aug 2008 at 9:50 pm BrianE

    Ozzie,

    John Stockwell is a very passionate man. His allegations are very serious and deserve serious consideration, since unlike Weiner, he was a member of the club. Perused his speech, and noticed a small inconsistency.

    Nicaragua is not the biggest covert action, it is the most famous one. Afghanistan is, we spent several hundred million dollars in Afghanistan. We’ve spent somewhat less than that, but close, in Nicaragua….

    I had always thought Afghanistan was one of the CIA successes. I didn’t realize that Russia invaded Afghanistan as a reaction to a CIA covert action. I’ll have to check into that.
    More later.

  112. on 21 Aug 2008 at 5:16 am Ozzie

    didn’t realize that Russia invaded Afghanistan as a reaction to a CIA covert action. I’ll have to check into that. More later.- Brian
    -
    I don’t know much about that era, either.

    My original premise was that nobody really knows the truth for years and years, until records become declassified.

    In 2002, however, I read a few accounts that have come true:

    1) That Saddam Hussein did not have WMD
    2) That the U.S could expect trouble with the Soveit Union over Caspian basin pipeline politics.

    I learned early on not to discuss such things with many people, who prefer to believe what makes them feel good over what is true.

    It’s been a pleasure meeting you, though, Brian. You have an intellectual curiousity that’s refreshing!

  113. on 21 Aug 2008 at 5:20 am Ozzie

    That the U.S could expect trouble with the Soveit Union over Caspian basin pipeline politics.. Me

    Ooops! I meant Russia, not the Soviet Union.

  114. on 21 Aug 2008 at 7:20 am Ozzie

    “I didn’t realize that Russia invaded Afghanistan as a reaction to a CIA covert action. I’ll have to check into that.”- Brian

    Hey, Brian, your post got me interested in where I might find more info, too. Turns out the current Secretary of Defense, former CIA honcho revealed this info in his book “From the Shadows.”

    While I was looking, I found a 1998 Zbigniew Brzezinski interview, which was translated from a French magazine. If accurate, it’s pretty explosive:

    http://www.ucc.ie/acad/appsoc/tmp_store/mia/Library/history/afghanistan/archive/brzezinski/1998/interview.htm

    The CIA’s Intervention in Afghanistan
    Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
    President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser

    Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998
    ——————————————————————————–

    Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

    Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

    Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

    B: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

    Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?

    B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

    Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

    B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

    Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

    B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

    “I had always thought Afghanistan was one of the CIA successes.” – Brian

    I tried to find out more about the book, “From the Shadows” and this USA Today article about “Charlie Wilson’s War” popped up, with a quote from Chalmers Johnson.

    It “certainly defeated the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and probably defeated the Soviet Union period. But the costs were enormous,” said Johnson, author of the book “Blowback: The Cost and Consequences of American Empire.”

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-12-15-4096010899_x.htm

    I’ve read articles by Chalmers Johnson, and like him, but that could simply be because I agree with him re: blowback and ways the past influences the present.

    Other people might find him decidedly distasteful.

  115. on 21 Aug 2008 at 7:34 am suek

    >>But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.>>

    This statement alone makes me question his bona fides. What there is in common among those islamic fundamentalists is a desire to unite the world under the Grand Caliphate. They are united by a religion that requires them to kill or suppress all other religions. Christian fundamentalists desire your conversion. Muslims demand it. Christian fundamentalists say “come and you will have eternal life”. Muslims say “come or we’ll kill you”.

  116. on 21 Aug 2008 at 11:29 am Ymarsakar

    Allowing government records or pundits, after the fact, to decide what and how you think, Oz, is not exactly a recommend way for individuals to develop critical and independent thinking abilities.

    It does not make you any less prejudiced, but it does prevent you from learning virtuous habits on how to judge information as they happen.

  117. on 21 Aug 2008 at 1:23 pm suek

    More on Brzezinski…

    http://sweetness-light.com/archive/dems-could-revise-poland-missile-deal

  118. on 21 Aug 2008 at 3:14 pm Ozzie

    More on Brzezinski- Suek

    Zbigniew Brzezinski aklso wroye a book called, “The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives,” which I forced myself to read.

    a Mini Review:

    “But the heart of the book is the ambitious strategy it prescribes for extending the Euro-Atlantic community eastward to Ukraine and lending vigorous support to the newly independent republics of Central Asia and the Caucasus, part and parcel of what might be termed a strategy of “tough love” for the Russians. . . ”

    http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19971101fabook3692/zbigniew-brzezinski/the-grand-chessboard-american-primacy-and-its-geostrategic-imperatives.html

    Anyone who thinks that the Democrats aren’t interested in “American Primacy” haven’t read Brzezinski.

    From the book:

    “But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.” (p. xiv)

    Sounds a lot like the neoconservative outlook to me.

  119. on 21 Aug 2008 at 3:50 pm Ozzie

    Remember, Mr. Brzezinski is one of Mr. Obama’s top advisors. – From Suek’s link

    It seems to me that regardless who wins the election (and regardless which candidate promises what) U.S. foreign policy will revole around American hegemony.

    “What has bothered Brzezinski is that as a result of the Soviet collapse, the United States is the unquestioned world leader, unchallenged for the moment by any other power. But American democracy does not lend itself well to the running of empires. This has frustrated Brzezinski, who has now provided another scholarly blueprint for what he believes the United States should do in coming years to further America’s interests, maintain the hegemony it commands and prevent global anarchy.” – The New York Times review of The Grand Chessboard, 1997

    “In essence, (Bush’s National Security Strategy] lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence. . . . The report’s repeated references to terrorism are misleading, however, because the approach of the new National Security Strategy was clearly not inspired by the events of Sept. 11. They can be found in much the same language in a report issued in September 2000 by the Project for the New American Century, a group of conservative interventionists outraged by the thought that the United States might be forfeiting its chance at a global empire. “- ” Jay Bookman, The President’s Real Goal in Iraq, The Atlanta Journal Constitution, 2002

    http://www.uni-muenster.de/PeaCon/global-texte/g-w/n/ajc_com%20%20Opinion%20%20Bush's%20real%20goal%20in%20Iraq.htm

  120. on 22 Aug 2008 at 11:42 am BrianE

    Those critical of CIA work from these tenets:

    The engine of American foreign policy has been fueled not by a devotion to any kind of morality, but rather by the necessity to serve other imperatives, which can be summarized as follows:
    * making the world safe for American corporations;
    * enhancing the financial statements of defense contractors at home who have contributed generously to members of congress;
    * preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model;
    * extending political and economic hegemony over as wide an area as possible, as befits a “great power.”
    This in the name of fighting a supposed moral crusade against what cold warriors convinced themselves, and the American people, was the existence of an evil International Communist Conspiracy, which in fact never existed, evil or not.
    The United States carried out extremely serious interventions into more than 70 nations in this period.

    From the website, Third World Taveler.

    If you accept these “truths”, you will be critical of American policy.

  121. on 22 Aug 2008 at 11:55 am BrianE

    Ozzie, I said I’d look at the speech by John Stockwell, where he obliquely claims the CIA has been responsible for 6 million deaths.
    I can’t refute that claim which includes Vietnam, for several reasons- the chief being it is speculation that fighting wouldn’t have occurred and people died had we done nothing. What Stockwell charges is that these conflicts would have never happened had we not intervened. Which is patently false.
    Did the CIA and US policy support the wrong people? In hindsight, probably. This all falls into speculation, which is much of what Stockwell deals with.

    Here’s some quotes of this speech:

    What I really got out of these 6 years in Africa was a sense … that nothing we were doing in fact defended U.S. national security interests very much. We didn’t have many national security interests in Bujumbura, Burundi, in the heart of Africa. I concluded that I just couldn’t see the point.

    Cuba began meddling in Africa in 1963, and the Soviet Union before then.

    I testified to the Congress and then I began my education in earnest, after having been taught to fight communists all my life. I went to see what communists were all about. I went to Cuba to see if they do in fact eat babies for breakfast. And I found they don’t. I went to Budapest, a country that even national geographic admits is working nicely. I went to Jamaica to talk to Michael Manley about his theories of social democracy.

    I went to Grenada and established a dialogue with Maurice Bishop and Bernard Cord and Phyllis Cord, to see – these were all educated people, and experienced people – and they had a theory, they had something they wanted to do, they had rationales and explanations – and I went repeatedly to hear them. And then of course I saw the U.S., the CIA mounting a covert action against them, I saw us orchestrating our plan to invade the country.

    This is a man that has aligned himself with those he at one time opposed. It’s one thing to point out the failings of CIA operations. It’s another thing to throw yourself into understanding communist dogma, and allowing your judgement to become clouded. I couldn’t help but think—propaganda.

    Talking about Reagan administration:

    They’re building detention centers. There were 8 kept as mothballs under the McLaren act after World War II, to detain aliens and dissidents in the next war, as was done in the next war, as was done with the Japanese people during World War II. They’re building 10 more, and army camps, and the… executive memos about these things say it’s for aliens and dissidents in the next national emergency….

    FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, headed by Loius Guiffrida, a friend of Ed Meese’s…. He’s going about the country lobbying and demanding that he be given authority, in the times of national emergency, to declare martial law, and establish a curfew, and gun down people who violate the curfew… in the United States.

    And then there’s Ed Meese, as I said. The highest law enforcement officer in the land, President Reagan’s closest friend, going around telling us that the constitution never did guarantee freedom of speech and press, and due process of the law, and assembly.

    What they are planning for this society, and this is why they’re determined to take us into a war if we’ll permit it… is the Reagan revolution…. So he’s getting himself some laws so when he puts in the troops in Nicaragua, he can take charge of the American people, and put people in jail, and kick in their doors, and kill them if they don’t like what he’s doing….

    The man has gone over to the other side. If you believe there’s another side.

  122. on 22 Aug 2008 at 12:01 pm Ozzie

    Those critical of CIA work from these tenets- Brian

    I dont believe that Communism never existed, or that it wasn’t (and isnt) evil, Brian, and it looks as if you’re deliberately trying to discredit people, based on a false premise.

    Once again, a book will be far more enlighting than a trip to “Third World Traveler.”

    At times you seem genuninely interested in this history.. If you are, read a book. If not, stick with what you believe to be the truth.

  123. on 22 Aug 2008 at 12:10 pm BrianE

    Letter from Cuban intelligence operative Pineiro to Raul Castro in November, 1972:

    Commander—

    For some time now we have discussed the possibility of entering Angola and Mozambique with the objective of getting to know the revolutionary movements in those countries. These movements have been a mystery even for those socialist countries that give them considerable aid. This research would help us give more focused aid to those movements.

    I don’t consider it necessary to delineate the strategic importance of these countries, it takes only pointing out that a change in the course of events of the wars that are developing in both countries could signify a change in all the forces in the African continent. For the first time two independent countries in Africa from which a bigger war could be waged would have common borders with the region with the principle investment and the strongest political-military knot of Imperialism in Africa exist: South Africa, Rhodesia, Zaire, and the Portuguese colonies.

    November 14, 1965

    Letter from Che Gueverra to head of Cuban Intelligence Operations in Zaire

    Rafael,

    I attach some letters for you from Flavio. Not all is well in terms of organization. Changa insists that he has no money, and that is the reason why he doesn’t set up the camp in Kigoma. Now, Oliva has left with Kabila without leaving money. I gave him all my reserve of money, 8,150, which they should reimburse me (5,000) so we can always have money available. The 50,000 came to me like a ring to a finger, since I was out of money and now we have the politics of buying everything, even yucca.

    I am completely in agreement in preparing the clandestine base with these characteristics: If possible, buy or make a contract with a warehouse where the principal nutritional products can arrive without bringing much attention, have a… near the lake and relatively far from Kigoma with a natural loading dock…[illegible] find one or two boats that can go without being suspicious over there. The best thing would be to have two… on this side, and cross twice (back and forth) in the night. But that depends on various factors: [illegible]

    I need a few small things. Multivitamins of any kind you can find, since sicknesses related to malnutrition have begun, as much nylon as possible, and a diary for 1966, since I have hopes to keep a diary that year and this one is running out.

    I think that is it, I have attached letters for…[illegible] and Pablo.

    A hug for everyone, and a request to make the best effort possible. We are wining.

    Tatu

    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB67/

    Weiner quotes the succinct definition of the agency’s main Cold War mission by Richard Helms, its head (DCI) from 1966-73: “To beat the goddam Russians!” A balanced understanding of the CIA’s record thus requires a serious examination of the KGB operations that it set out to defeat. Legacy of Ashesdoes not provide it. At times it resembles a history of Allied operations in the Second World War that pays little attention to the deployment of enemy forces.
    By the time that the CIA was founded, Soviet Intelligence had used covert action on a huge scale to rig elections and destroy opposition in the newly established Soviet Bloc. It was largely in reaction to such operations by the KGB that a secret inquiry ordered by Eisenhower reached the alarming conclusion that “long-standing American concepts of ‘fair play’ must be reconsidered. We must develop effective espionage and counter-espionage services, and must learn to subvert, sabotage and destroy our enemies by more clever, more sophisticated and more effective methods than those used against us.”
    Legacy of Ashes fails to do justice to the CIA’s role, despite its excessive use of covert action, in preventing the Cold War turning hot.

    Review of the “Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America

    Paradoxically, the success of the Venona secret has skewed our understanding of the Cold War. Haynes and Klehr are correct to note that those histories of the Stalinist era that belittle the Soviet threat have indeed “perpetuated many myths that have given Americans a warped view of the nation’s history.” Hopefully, these invaluable Venona files will help us see more clearly just how much of a threat Soviet espionage and Communist subversion posed to American security. The much-desired opening of all Russian intelligence archives dealing with this period would go far in doing just that.

    It is clear from these documents is that Cuba was involved in countries around Africa, introducing its version of Marxism, the Soviet Union had infiltrated the US government (Venona documents), and the KGB had been at work around the world before the CIA was chartered and much of what we did was a reaction to their threats.

    We can argue the mistakes, because that’s what we get to do in an open society. I’m sure there are folks in the former Soviet Union, having similar discussions about the failings and excesses of the KGB and the communist part bosses during this same time period.

  124. on 22 Aug 2008 at 12:15 pm Ozzie

    Talking about Reagan administration:

    They’re building detention centers. There were 8 kept as mothballs under the McLaren act after World War II, to detain aliens and dissidents in the next war, as was done in the next war, as was done with the Japanese people during World War II. They’re building 10 more, and army camps, and the… executive memos about these things say it’s for aliens and dissidents in the next national emergency….

    he was describing Rex 84, Brian. He was telling the truth.

    On July 5, 1987, the Miami Herald gave us a glimpse of what the lead counsel for the Senate Iran-contra committee called a “secret government-within-a-government” and alerted readers to standby legislation, which, as columnist Jack Anderson had previously warned, was meant to “suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.”

    These provisions still stand, by the way.

    From the Sydney Morning Herald in 2002:

    “Recent pronouncements from the Bush Administration and national security initiatives put in place in the Reagan era could see internment camps and martial law in the United States.”
    – The Sydney Morning Herald, July 27, 2002

    http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/27/1027497418339.html

  125. on 22 Aug 2008 at 12:18 pm BrianE

    Ozzie,
    I’m curious about your obsession with books.
    Yes, the internet is full of kooks and propoganda, but it’s also full of good information.
    If you assume that a book will be more reliable in it’s information, that is probably true, since hopefully it has been fact checked by the editors. But it certainly doesn’t guarantee a lack of bias.
    Think of my posts more in realm of a newspaper reporter, since that’s what I used to be.
    I do follow a process before I’ll link to information.
    I’m not anti-book though.

  126. on 22 Aug 2008 at 12:22 pm BrianE

    It’s more the tone of his (Stockwell) comments that caught my attention.

    On July 5, 1987, the Miami Herald gave us a glimpse of what the lead counsel for the Senate Iran-contra committee called a “secret government-within-a-government” and alerted readers to standby legislation, which, as columnist Jack Anderson had previously warned, was meant to “suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.”

    Yeah, except congress was controlled by democrats at the time and I doubt “standby legislation” that would “suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights” would have passed.

  127. on 22 Aug 2008 at 12:24 pm Ozzie

    We can argue the mistakes, because that’s what we get to do in an open society- Brian

    Read Legacy of Ashes and then we can have an honest discussion.

    Until then, you are arguing from an erroneous belief based on something that you read on Third World Traveler.

    Nobody said that Communism wasn’t a legitimate threat. Especially in Cuba.

  128. on 22 Aug 2008 at 12:36 pm Ozzie

    Yeah, except congress was controlled by democrats at the time and I doubt “standby legislation” that would “suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights” would have passed.
    - Brian

    By George, I think he’s got it!!!

    It doesnt matter if Democrats or Reopublicans are in the White House or in Congress, and the “Left vs Right” debate blinds Americans to the fact that the Constitution and civl liberties are in jeopardy, no matter which party holds power.

    For your consideration:

    1967: Assisted by an Army task force, President Johnson establishes the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, which calls for the use of military force to squelch civil disturbances. On May 4, 1970, four students are killed at Kent State University when the Ohio National Guard fires at unarmed protesters.

    1971: Sen. Sam Ervin’s Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights uncovers a military intelligence surveillance system used against thousands of American citizens, and stumbles upon Operation Garden Plot (the United States Civil Disturbance Plan 55-2), which, according to information released under the Freedom of Information Act, gives federal forces the authority to use “deadly force” against any “dissident.”

    1975: Journalists Ron Ridenhour and Arthur Lublow investigate Operation Cable Splicer, a subplan of Operation Garden Plot, designed to control civilian populations and take over state and local governments. Bill Moyers later lists Operation Cable Splicer and Garden Plot among examples of ways “the secret government [has] waged war on the American people.” Sen. Frank Church’s Committee to Study Government Operations sheds light on government-sanctioned civil rights abuses, most notably those conducted from 1956 to 1971, under the COINTELPRO initiative.

    1982-84: Col. Oliver North helps draft secret wartime contingency plans, which, according to a 2002 report in the Sydney Morning Herald, provide for “the imposition of martial law, internment camps, and the turning over of government to the president and FEMA.” Columnist Jack Anderson reports that FEMA’s emergency “standby legislation” is meant to “suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.”

    1984: The Rex-84 “readiness exercise” program is conducted by 34 federal departments and agencies under Ronald Reagan’s directive. Reportedly established to control illegal aliens crossing the Mexican/U.S. border, the exercise tests military readiness to round up and detain citizens in case of massive civil unrest.

    .May 11, 1998: World Net Daily’s Geoff Metcalf addresses Internet rumors about concentration camps for U.S. citizens. “The U.S. Army director of resource management has confirmed the validity of a memorandum relating to the establishment of a civilian inmate labor program under development by the Department of Army,” he writes, before validating Rep. Henry Gonzalez’s 1994 statement, that “The truth of the matter is that you do have those standby provisions, and the statutory emergency plans are there whereby you could, in the name of stopping terrorism, apprehend, invoke the military, and arrest Americans and hold them in detention camps.”

    Sept. 11, 2001: President Bush activates a Cold-War era shadow government, installing cabinet members in underground bunkers. When this plan is uncovered months later, members of Congress reveal that they were not consulted.

    In the days following the Sept. 11 attacks, the Office of Special Plans takes root at the Pentagon. In time, the OSP rivals the C.I.A. and the D.I.A. as the President’s main source of intelligence on Iraq’s WMD.

    Oct. 2001: Shortly after Democratic legislators are targeted in anthrax attacks, the PATRIOT Act is railroaded through Congress and the Senate, without the benefit of committee hearings or extended debate.

    Nov. 2001: The Bush administration issues executive orders allowing for the use of special military courts and empowering Atty. General John Ashcroft to detain non-citizens indefinitely. Noted conservative William Safire writes that “a president of the United States has just assumed what amounts to dictatorial power.” The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MEHPA) is introduced to state governors, allowing for confiscation of real estate and other private property and outlining plans to herd citizens into stadiums. President Bush’s first Executive Order effectively repeals access to presidential records.

    Feb. 2002: Former FEMA deputy director, John Brinkerhoff defends the Pentagon’s desire to deploy troops on American streets, arguing that the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 has been misinterpreted.

    April 2002: It’s announced that Northern Command will debut in October to assist in homeland defense. Gen. Ralph Eberhart, the NORAD commander in charge of air defense on Sept. 11, is later named by George W. Bush to serve at its head. Though NORTHCOM’s Web site assures that its “operations within the United States are governed by law, including the Posse Comitatus Act,” Eberhart admits in an interview that, “We should always be reviewing things like Posse Comitatus and other laws if we think it ties our hands in protecting the American people.”

    June 2002: Former White House counsel John Dean writes an article asking, “Could terrorism result in a constitutional dictator?” A month later, the Sydney Morning Herald reports that the Bush administration might employ Reagan-era security initiatives, installing “internment camps and martial law in the United States.” In Aug., the LA Times reports on Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft’s “desire for [detention] camps for U.S. citizens he deems to be enemy combatants.”

    July 2002: Peter Kirsanow, a Bush appointee to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, warns that should America be attacked again, the public will clamor for Arab-Americans to be placed in internment camps. “If they [the terrorists] come from the same ethnic group that attacked the World Trade Center, you can forget about civil rights,” he said.

    Nov. 25, 2002: After the 32 page Homeland Security Bill ballooned to nearly 500 pages overnight, and was railroaded through the Senate and Congress, it is signed into law. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT) says it represents “the most severe weakening of the Freedom of Information Act” in 36 years; and Rep Ron Paul (R-TX) worries that it “expands the federal police state.”

    Feb. 2003: Confidential draft legislation entitled “The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003,” is leaked to the Center for Public Integrity and Executive Director Chuck Lewis deems it “five to ten times” worse than the original PATRIOT Act.

    May 2003: Atlanta Police Department acknowledges that it routinely places antiwar protesters under surveillance. “This harkens back to some very dark times in our nation’s history,” state Rep. Nan Orrock tells the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

    July 2003: In the midst of revelations regarding the hyped case for war in Iraq, documents from Dick Cheney’s Energy Task are released and the public learns that the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy recommended that Cheney’s task force consider “a ‘military’ option in dealing with Iraq,” five months before the Sept. 11 attacks.

    Oct. 2003: FBI Intelligence Bulletin no. 89 is sent to police departments. One month later, ACLU executive director Anthony Romero tells the New York Times: “This bulletin confirms that the federal government is targeting innocent Americans” and says, “It is troubling that the FBI is advocating spying on peaceful protesters, but even protesters who engage in civil disobedience or other disruptive acts should not be treated like potential terrorists.”

    Dec. 2003: In an interview, Gen. Tommy Franks warns that if terrorists unleash “a weapon of mass destruction. . . somewhere in the Western world” (but not necessarily in the U.S.) it may “begin to militarize our country” and “unravel the fabric of our Constitution.”

  129. on 22 Aug 2008 at 1:21 pm Ymarsakar

    To Oz, people wrote books and people wrote stuff on the internet. The difference is, the people who the books Oz uses to support Oz’s belief, are valid while the works of people on google is “hit and miss”.

  130. on 22 Aug 2008 at 1:49 pm Ozzie

    The difference is, the people who the books Oz uses to support Oz’s belief, are valid while the works of people on google is “hit and miss- Yam

    Isnt that a no-brainer?

    The difference is that well-respected authors tend to rely upon meticulous research, and back up they say with pages and pages of notes. Then, too, serious authors who write books about the CIA must have their work vetted by the CIA- else they get sued.

    People on the Internet often mistake opinion for fact, and believe and repeat things that are simply not true. And many back up their opinions, citing others’ opinions, which can be entertaining, but not neccesarily true.

  131. on 23 Aug 2008 at 12:01 pm BrianE

    Ozzie said:

    The difference is that well-respected authors tend to rely upon meticulous research, and back up they say with pages and pages of notes. Then, too, serious authors who write books about the CIA must have their work vetted by the CIA- else they get sued.

    People on the Internet often mistake opinion for fact, and believe and repeat things that are simply not true. And many back up their opinions, citing others’ opinions, which can be entertaining, but not neccesarily true.

    Facts are facts, whatever the source. They are either true or they are not. The benefit of the internet is you can sometimes get closer to the source than through a book, which is filtered through the author’s biases.

    More on Legacy of Ashes:

    But the thing about scholarship is that one must use sources honestly, and one doesn’t get a pass on this even if he is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist for the New York Times. Starting with a title that is based on a gross distortion of events, the book is a 600-page op-ed piece masquerading as serious history; it is the advocacy of a particularly dark point of view under the guise of scholarship. Weiner has allowed his agenda to drive his research and writing, which is, of course, exactly backwards.
    History, fairly done, is all about context, motivations, and realistic expectations in addition to the accurate portrayal of events. Weiner is not honest about context, he is dismissive of motivations, his expectations for intelligence are almost cartoonish, and his book too often is factually unreliable.

    The irony is that a new history of CIA is needed to fill the gap left by the now dated works of John Ranelagh (The Agency, 1986) and Christopher Andrew (For the President’s Eyes Only, 1995).
    Having read the book, I have to conclude that this is not it; anyone who wants a balanced perspective of CIA and its history should steer well clear of Legacy of Ashes.
    The Deceit in the Title
    The phrase “legacy of ashes” comes from a critical remark President Dwight D. Eisenhower uttered near the end of his career when, Weiner tells us, Ike finally blew up at Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) Allen Dulles and the failings of CIA generally, and more particularly at Dulles’s resistance to recommendations for intelligence reform from the president’s board of consultants.
    Here’s how Weiner treats the episode, under the subhead “An Eight-Year Defeat” (page 166).
    “A great deal has been accomplished,” Dulles insisted to the president at the final gatherings of Eisenhower’s National Security Council. Everything is well in hand, he said. I have fixed the clandestine service. American intelligence has never been more agile and adept. Coordination and cooperation
    are better than they have ever been. The proposals of the president’s intelligence board were preposterous, he said, they were madness, they were illegal. I am responsible under the law for intelligence coordination, he reminded the president. I cannot delegate that responsibility. Without my leadership, he said, American intelligence would be a “body floating in thin air.”
    At the last, Dwight Eisenhower exploded in anger and frustration. “The structure of our intelligence organization is faulty,” he told Dulles. It makes no sense, it has to be reorganized, and we should have done it long ago. Nothing had changed since Pearl Harbor. “I have suffered an eight-year defeat on this,” said the president of the United States. He said he would “leave a legacy of ashes” to his successor.
    This incident serves as an iconic moment in the book, the cornerstone of the entire edifice, a sort of literary fractal that encapsulates in microcosm all that Weiner thinks is wrong with CIA: its unrelenting record of failures, its non-responsiveness—and even duplicity—to presidents, its cowboy-ish autonomy and resistance to accountability and oversight.
    But this central episode in Weiner’s book is an invented dialog, a created exchange that never happened. An examination of the source documents shows that:
    •Dulles made his remarks (“body floating in thin air”) at a meeting of the National Security Council (NSC) on 12 January 1961, and he was speaking against a Defense Department proposal to separate the position of DCI from the management of CIA.
    • Eisenhower’s supposed retort (“eight-year defeat…legacy of ashes”) occurred a week earlier,
    at the 5 January NSC meeting, and had nothing to do with CIA. Eisenhower was expressing frustration at what he considered his major failing regarding intelligence—his inability to reform and streamline military intelligence.
    • Far from criticizing Dulles and CIA, Eisenhower at both meetings affirmed the Agency’s central having four separate military intelligence agencies.
    • The words “preposterous” and “madness” are nowhere to be found in the record of Dulles’s remarks on proposals to reform intelligence.1
    Here is the critical paragraph from the minutes of the 5 January meeting.
    The President then remarked that soon after Pearl Harbor, he was engaged in an operation which required him to have certain information which he was unable to obtain from the Navy, i.e., the strength the Navy had left in the Pacific. The President also noted that the U.S. fought the first year of the war in Europe entirely on the basis of British intelligence. Subsequently, each Military Service developed its own intelligence organization. He thought the situation made little sense in managerial terms. He had suffered an eight-year defeat on this question but would leave a legacy of ashes for his successor.
    A prize-winning journalist has distorted what was said, why it was said, when it was said, and the circumstances under which it was said—all to support his thesis that CIA has been a continuous failure from 1947 up to the present. Weiner’s use of the plural “final gatherings” in the excerpt from his account suggests he knows what he is doing.
    1 Memoranda of Discussions at the 473rd Meeting (5 January 1961) and the 474th Meeting (12 January 1961) of the National Security Council; documents 80 and 84, in Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963: Volume XXV (2001).
    See also document 79, a record of the 3 January meeting of Eisenhower, National Security Advisor Gordon Gray, and General Andrew Goodpaster.

    Here is an in depth review of the book, if you are interested in balance:
    http://cicentre.com/BK/legacy_of_ashes_review.pdf

    Yes, Dumovic is a historian working for the CIA, but the events described are from meetings at which there are permanent records. Facts are facts.

    Dujmovic joined the CIA in 1990 as an analyst and previously served as a speechwriter for former CIA directors, John Deutch and George Tenet. Prior to his career with the agency, he served as an officer in the U.S. Coast Guard and taught at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy.

  132. on 23 Aug 2008 at 12:39 pm Ozzie

    Yes, Dumovic is a historian working for the CIA, but the events described are from meetings at which there are permanent records. Facts are facts.- Brian

    Legacy of Ashes was vetted by the CIA before it went to press.

    But I’m not surpised that the author’s perceptions are being challenged. Or that a CIA historian is challenging dates and details, while not arguing over the validity of the bigger issues such as the coups in Iran, Iraq, Guatemala and Chile.

    That’s what I’m interested in. The declassifed stuff that’s proven to true.

    Hell, I was shocked that he only briefly mentioned the Dr. Frank Olson case and he made it sound as if the Kennedy administration approved of Operation Northwoods.. and yes, I am aware that his peceptions are his perceptions.

    Even so, he packs a whole slew of information within 600 or so pages.

    I’m mostly interested in covert actions that become declassifed and available to the public, compared to what Americans were being told at the time.

  133. on 23 Aug 2008 at 1:58 pm BrianE

    Legacy of Ashes was vetted by the CIA before it went to press.

    The CIA doesn’t make judgements on the facts of a book, merely decides what material is still relevant to remain classified.

    That’s what I’m interested in. The declassifed stuff that’s proven to true.

    Weiner was willing to combine events to create a literary “event”. This should lead to questioning other “facts”. I’m sure you haven’t drawn conclusions based only on Weiner’s account.

    Have you ever served in a capacity where you made decisions affecting others based on information that was confidential and couldn’t be revealed? Often your judgements are called into question, faulty conclusions are made about your motives, and you are unable to respond.

  134. on 23 Aug 2008 at 2:16 pm Ozzie

    Weiner was willing to combine events to create a literary “event”. This should lead to questioning other “facts”. I’m sure you haven’t drawn conclusions based only on Weiner’s account-
    Brian

    My interest in the Iranian coup began long ago. Ditto for the coup in Iraq, and Gultemala and Chile.

    His accounts simply reinforced other things I’ve read.

    On the other hand, Weiner is certain that the current Bush administration didnt “cherry pick” intelligence and though he included information about “Curveball,” he omitted information about the Office of Special Plans.

    This goes against things I’ve read for former CIA officers like Ray mcGovern.

    In cases such as these, it’s diffcult to know who’s telling the truth. Though, in many cases, McGovern proved correct as things happened, in real time

    When it comes to verifiable truth, however – especially where the CIA is concerned, declassified information is invaluable.

    And this book, which is a history of the CIA, gives anyone who is interested in such things a place to start.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.