10/21/7 War Fix: Bhutto Bomb; Agents in the Midst: Benazir Bhutto & Dalai Lama Inevitable Pak-Afghan Union

"The "civilized" have created the wretched, quite coldly and deliberately, and do not intend to change the status quo; are responsible for their slaughter and enslavement; rain down bombs on defenseless children whenever and wherever they decide that their "vital interests" are menaced, and think nothing of torturing a man to death: these people are not to be taken seriously when they speak of the "sanctity" of human life, or the "conscience" of the "civilized world".
James Baldwin, Collected Essays (1998) "The Devil Finds Work" (orig. pub. 1976)

"American strategic [nuclear] forces do not exist solely for the purpose of deterring a Soviet nuclear threat or attack against the U.S. itself. Instead, they are intended to support U.S. foreign policy."
Colin Gray U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency Source: "Victory is Possible," Foreign Policy, Summer 1980

Digest commentary:

The "new Pearl Harbor" was the pretext to 'officially' launch a new U.S. hegemonic world war in planning and working stage for decades:

Under Zbigniew's Brzezinski’s “Arc of Crisis” strategy presented at the 1979
Bilderberg meeting, Afghanistan was a key target in the crosshairs of the
Carter administration. Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, National
Security Advisor to the US President Carter from 1977 to 1981, Le Nouvel
Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998:

Q: 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 [intégrisme],
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:
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.

All U.S. imperialist wars, including the current "global war on terrorism" are drastic, temporary 'fixes' for deep structural crises to expand and secure U.S. global dominance by eliminating major rivals and resistance to restructure the world map and capital. The U.S. ruling class' security and survival is at stake.

The current juggernaut to make the world safe for U.S. capital's domination demonstrates not only its profoundly racist, barbaric nature, but its fundamental strategic weakness: capitalist crisis and geostrategic vulnerability drives its desperate measures before major capitalist rivals China and Russia cut them off at the pass. Global hegemony rests on control of the world's energy resources so Arab, African and Asian countries and waters with most of the resources who refuse to surrender to U.S. domination, are "terrorists".

Clearly to all who wish to see there's no electoral opposition party: no strategic neoliberal/neoconservative/dem/repub. disunity about the bipartisan official NSSofUSA: full-spectrum dominance ... tactical differences are about how best to achieve this goal...and how to sucker the people into the game. As John Kerry put it asked why he voted to authorize the 'Bush' 2002 invasion of Iraq: "I didn’t realize he was going to fuck it up so bad."

As another fascist, Nazi honcho Hermann Göring said in 1946:
"... of course, the people don't want war, why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war...That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy...the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. "

In the words of Margaret Atwood:
"Siren Song"

This is the one song everyone
would like to learn: the song
that is irresistible:
the song that forces men
to leap overboard in squadrons
even though they see the beached skulls.
it is a boring song
but it works every time.

Will we do the world and ourselves a deadly disservice continuing to pretend this state terrorist world war to conquer the world...or destroy it by 'preventive nuclear attacks' ... is a "Bush" crime, supporting the equally criminal "opposition" to pursue the same bipartisan imperialist agenda instead of joining the world to stop them?


Bush's World War Three
By Michel Chossudovsky
“We got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel...if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.”
While Iran's non existent nukes are said to constitute a lethal and deadly threat, so-called tactical nuclear weapons "Made in America" are described in Pentagon documents as "harmless to the surrounding civilian population".
In a bitter irony, those who decide on the use of nuclear weapons believe their own propaganda. A preemptive nuclear attack on Iran is upheld as a bona fide humanitarian undertaking which contributes to global security.

And now the US Head of State... is hinting that if Iran does not give up its nonexistent nuclear weapons program, we might be reluctantly forced into in a World War III situation. Bush has insinuated that as Commander in Chief, he could decide to launch a war on Iran, which would result in World War III....In an utterly twisted logic, World War III is presented by the US President as a means to preventing collateral damage. The war would be triggered by Iran, who has refused to abide by the "reasonable demands" of "the international community". Realities are twisted and turned upside down. Iran is being accused of wanting to start World War III....

George W. Bush is an instrument of powerful economic interests. A preemptive war on Iran has widespread support by the US Congress, it is also supported by America's European partners and allies. Leading Republicans have expressed their support for a preemptive World War III scenario. In a 2006 interview at the height of the Israeli bombing of Lebanon (July 16, 2007), former Republican leader of the House Newt Gingrich candidly acknowledged:
"We’re in the early stages of what I would describe as the third World War and, frankly, our bureaucracy’s not responding fast enough and we don’t have the right attitude. And this is the 58th year of the war to destroy Israel and, frankly, the Israelis have every right to insist that every single missile leave south Lebanon, and the United States ought to be helping the Lebanese government have the strength to eliminate Hezbollah as a military force — not as a political force in the parliament — but as a military force in south Lebanon.
The Administration has adopted a first strike "pre-emptive" nuclear policy, which has now received congressional approval. Nuclear weapons are no longer a weapon of last resort as during the Cold War era... a classified Pentagon document (Nuclear Posture Review) presented to the US Senate in early 2002, established so-called "contingency plans" for an offensive "first strike use" of nuclear weapons, not only against the "axis of evil" (Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria and North Korea), but also against Russia and China

"The United States must cultivate a mental view toward world settlement after this war which will enable us to impose our own terms, amounting perhaps to a pax-Americana."
U.S. Department of State - Source: Minutes S-3 of the Security Subcommittee, Advisory Committee on Postwar Foreign Policy, 6 May, 1942, Notter File, Box 77, Record Group 59, Records of the Department of State, National Archives, DC.

"If the people are not convinced that the Free World is in mortal danger it would be impossible for Congress to vote the vast sums now being spent to avert danger. With the support of public opinion, as marshalled by the press, we are off to a good start. It is our Job - yours and mine -- to keep our people convinced that the only way to keep disaster away from our shores is to build up America's might."
Charles Wilson, Chairman of the Board of General Electric, Truman appointee to head the Office of Defence Mobilization, in speech to the Newspaper Publishers Association, 1950 from "Addicted To War" http://www.addictedtowar.com

"The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media."
-former CIA Director William Colby, 1977 Rolling Stone magazine Bernstein intervieew

CUI BONO? the familiar made-in-usa stink
After Bombing, Bhutto Assails Officials' Ties
The opposition leader Benazir Bhutto said she had warned the Pakistani government that suicide bomb squads were going to go after her on her return to the country.

Backstage, U.S. Nurtured Pakistan Rivals' Deal
The violence that greeted Benazir Bhutto's return to Pakistan has raised questions about whether a tenuoupower-sharing deal with President Pervez Musharraf can survive.

her U.S. state terrorist managers already own Pakistan's rulers and engineered her return
"The terrorists are trying to take over my country and we have to stop them."

Bhutto Back in Pakistan After 8-Year [self-imposed] Exil
The return of Benazir Bhutto, the opposition leader and former prime minister, is expected to reconfigure the country’s political landscape.
digest note: talk about transparency...U.S. 'pro-democracy' agent warned about attack by "a brotherly country"...
... she said she had been informed by officials of a "brotherly country" that four suicide squads -- one each from the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Pakistani Taliban and Karachi -- had been sent to target her. The officials of this country had informed the Pakistan government about these squads and even provided the phone numbers of the "handlers" of the suicide attackers, she claimed. Bhutto hoped the authorities would act on this information but said she appreciated the "difficulties" they faced in tackling such militant elements. She blamed the attack on her motorcade on a "militant minority that has only thrived in a military dictatorship". She said she had written a letter to President Pervez Musharraf on October 16 in which he had named three members of his government who should be investigated in the event of any attack on her. Bhutto also said she had been informed that the "next attack" on her would be carried out by sending police commandos "in the garb" of workers of a "rival party" to her homes in Karachi and Larkana so that her rivals could be blamed. Bhutto refused to identify the three persons she had named in her letter to Musharraf. She only described them as "certain people, individuals who abuse their positions and powers". She said the suicide bombing was not "an attack on an individual" but an attack on "what I represent, on democracy and on the unity and integrity of Pakistan".

The Inevitable Pak-Afghan Union
Op-Ed By Abid Ullah Jan

The US and its allies occupy both Afghanistan and Pakistan. The only difference is that the former is under the direct military occupation as a result of full-scale war waged against its former government. Pakistan, on the other hand, suffers from partial occupation. Unlike Hamid Karzai, the US forces have not waged a war to install General Musharraf. Nevertheless, compared to Afghanistan, the US can achieve its objectives more freely and conveniently in Pakistan. Along these full and partial occupations, natural resources, strategic positions, Pakistan’s nuclear capability and various other factors within and outside Pakistan and Afghanistan are pushing these countries are at work to somehow alter their present status.

Whatever may be the outcome, one can safely say that Pakistan and Afghanistan will not remain as two states on the world map for too long. Almost all the visible forces are engaged in somehow disintegrating these states. The invisible forces, nevertheless, are brining these countries towards an ultimate unification — towards the formation of a greater Afghanistan. A thorough analysis reveals that results of the visible forces, working for disintegrating these states, would also indirectly lead to strengthen position of the forces invisibly leading these states towards unification.

We must not ignore that the recent border skirmishes must be due to green light by Washington to either Kabul or Islamabad. The same thing happened before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the same pattorn of prior knowledge followed the course of events before 9/11. Similarly, the US had anticipated the war in Afghanistan well before the Afghan government’s invitation to the Soviet Union, which we dubbed as Soviet invasion. In fact, in the words of National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Carter Administration did what it could to “draw the Russians into the Afghan trap.” Six months before the Afghan government’s request to Soviet for military assistance, the first covert CIA aid to the Mujaheddin was authorized.

Brzezinski admitted in a 1998 interview that, “I wrote a note to the President in which I explained to him that in my opinion, this aid would result in military intervention by the Soviets...we didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we consciously increased the probability that they would do so.”[20] So, the continued devastation of Afghanistan is a matter of US policy and we cannot deny the probability that the recent Pak-Afghan tension is part of an American ploy to exploit the situation for a more direct role in Pakistan affairs — turning the indirect occupation to a more direct one.

Talks of division
The forces of disintegration have long been engaged in discussing division of Pakistan and Afghanistan in various ways. The more justified attempt would be in the name of fighting terrorism and Islamic extremism, terms that have no meaning except to inspire irrational fear and justify unjust policies; just as “communism” was used during the Cold War. In the name of “fighting terrorism,” the US got together with Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and India to sponsor a second round of UN Security Council sanctions on the Taliban. The vote was 13-0, with China and Malaysia dissenting, but abstaining. Nobody wanted to appear “soft on terrorism.” The US ambassador Nancy Soderberg called the vote “a strong stand against terrorism and for the maintenance of international peace and security.”. The Canadian ambassador said he voted for the resolution “because of the strong anti-terrorist message it sent.” The Dutch ambassador agreed that “it was important that the Council should send a political signal and send it with one voice.” In secret, Britain, Canada, and the Netherlands were against the sanctions, because “the only outcome of the sanctions would be to make the already appalling humanitarian situation in Afghanistan even worse.”[21]

Now imagine the same hype gaining momentum with the objective to reshape the geography of South Asia in order to combat international terrorism. The news stories and almost all analysis revolve around the assumption that 'the entire terrorism network has been managed by terrorist forces stationed in Pakistan under the safe umbrella of Government of Pakistan. These terrorist forces have taken the shelter of Islamic identity in order to implement their dangerous designs of dominating South Asia and make it an Islamic territory. ISI is fully supporting these groups in order to keep the US engaged in Afghanistan.' There are write ups on the net and a subtle indications in many op-ed pieces towards the proposal that disintegration of Pakistan is the only option for collapsing the terrorists' network altogether. Under such proposals, the whole NWFO should be transfored into a buffer zone, accountable to “the international comity of nations” so as to cut ISI’s access to the terrorists in Afghanistan.

Similalry there have been plans to divide Afghanistan in 4 parts. If the ethnic concept is implemented, practically it would result in the country being divided into four main regions - Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek and Pashtu. This delineation has been incorporated in the Dushanbe Plan, a strategy the US has developed for sending its forces into Afghanistan from the Central Asian republics.[22] Due to prolonged US stay in Afghanistan and it continued failure to bring peace and stability according to its own vision, the US might be tempted to pave the way for such partition.[23] This plan makes sense, when it is already on cards for too long and when the objectives of occupation have already been achieved.[24]

Greater Afghanistan
Despite all these plans of dividing Afghanistan and Pakistan, historical, social, economic, political and even security factors indicate that formation of Greater Afghanistan in inevitable. Interestingly all the forces of disintegration indirectly hasten such unification of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Pakistan’s policy since its inception has been focused on maintaining a situation that could help it avoid controversy over the Durand Line merging of the communities along this line. The chances of this merger are so obvious that the central government in Pakistan did not accept even naming the nameless NWFP according to the wishes of its people and unanimous resolutions of their representatives in provincial assembly, as if just naming it Pakhtoonistan or Pakhtoonkhwa would be enough for its separation from Pakistan.

One needs to ask if Pakistan and Afghanistan’s security is in staying unstable and exploited by outside forces or in uniting and forming greater Afghanistan. As far Pakistan’s security is concerned throughout its existence it has depended on major power wielders. This dependence is getting perilously in an environment in which Pakistan has to sacrifice its raison d'être and Islamic identity if it has to maintain the favored nation statu.

Cooperation with the US during the anti-Soviet was justified in the name of Islam and the US kept on feeding Pakistan for it was fighting its war. In the post 9/11 environment, Pakistan has to fight the US wars for domination and colonization if it has to remain in Washington’s good books. It has to get approval from Washington as to what kind of Islam it can follow. Pakistan has to live under perpetual dictatorship under the pretext of "assurance against any possible Talibanisation of the governance system"[25] According to the same report the U.S. will accept "limited Islamisation" in Pakistan, as if it is the US which will approve and reject the “kind” and level of acceptable Islam for us.

It means Pakistan’s security and survival is conditional upon the pleasure of Washington. If it could please it, it will live; otherwise, there is no guarantee of its existence. Internally, except the opportunist politicians, people from almost all segments of the society are against the US sponsored dictatorship, which keeps the state as much unstable as its leaders living on borrowed time.

Pakistan’s deepening involvement in the hoax US war on terrorism against its own citizens further alienates its government from the public. Externally, the arms gap with India is as wide as ever. Furthermore, India’s alliance with Israel make the situation even worse for Pakistan. As early as October 1995, Sandy Gordon predicted that in the 21 st century, "India is poised to emerge… as a far more important and influential power in the Indian Ocean region, and even globally, than it was in the latter part of the 20th. Some of the constraining factors in India's rise to power, particularly domestic and regional South Asian instability, are still present and will continue to snap at India's heels for some years to come. But the end of the Cold War has also enabled India to jettison some of the more burdensome foreign and economic policies that had constrained it in the past…. [whereas] Pakistan, which has long been India's only serious competitor in South Asia, has lost out seriously as a result of the end of the Cold War. While India suffers from internal instability, Pakistan's problems are potentially far more serious."[26]

The incidents of 9/11 in particular have changed the view that Gordon may be overstating India's ability to take advantage of the potential benefits to it of the Cold War's end. Today, Pakistan’s diplomatic position both on the Afghan and Kashmir front is very weak in the sense that no one is ready to listen to it point of view. Just as the world is silent over Israel’s nuclear and chemical programmes and issuing warnings and dealines to Iran, Pakistan pleas for addressing the ever worsening human rights situation in Kashmir are falling on deaf ear. On top of it, enormous problems of rural poverty, disease, environmental degradation, and overpopulation remain largely unaddressed.

As a reward for Musharraf’s services, Washington's decision to unclog the aid pipeline to Pakistan, however, scarcely begins to address Pakistan's security dilemma. After all, Pakistan is still not considered fit for F-16 and other major military sales. Furthermore, beyond Islamabad’s present close relations to Washington, lies the greater security problem for Pakistan: the gradual drying up of any promising alliance prospects to serve Pakistan's requirement for great-power insurance against joint Indo-Israel military might. Dream of an "Islamic bloc" solidly aligned behind Pakistan has failed utterly to materialize; and there are signs of etiolation as well in the fidelity to Pakistan even of China.

China’s record from the Gulf War I to war on Serbia, Afghanistan and then Iraq shows that if the going get really tough, it will not care more for the consistency of support for Pakistan over the past forty years. In recent years, Beijing has retreated to a conspicuously neutral position on Kashmir, unquestionably an important litmus test of friendship from Islamabad's point of view, and China's steadily expanding rapprochement with India, as Sandy Gordon has observed, "has provided India with a significant peace dividend in the context of its competition with Pakistan."[27]...
The geopolitical situation in Afghanistan on the other hand is, by any standard, extremely unstable. US and its allies have a very large stake in the stability of Karzai’s puppet regime. Pakistan, at least as much as any of the other external contenders, considers Afghanistan's stability and its leaders’ pro-Pakistan orientation to be matters of the most vital state interest. However, other than using its armed forces on the directions from Washington, Pakistan is totally marginalized at the moment.

The viable option for addressing Pakistan’s vulnerable political geography and its military-demographic-economic weakness relative to India lies in Pakistan’s Union with Afghanistan. Irrespective of the present situation in which both Pakistan and Afghanistan are fully and partially occupied by the US, Pakistan and Afghanistan may apply the central argument of Huntington's thesis, the "kin-country rallying"— the mobilizing of interstate support systems or alliances on religious or civilizational grounds, in the first available opportunity.


Pakistani military bleeding through 'someone else's war'
By Rahul Bedi and Brigadier (retd) Arun Sahgal
The series of strikes on Pakistan's military ...and its recurring operational setbacks are a pointer to the forces' declining morale and the overall will to fight. Nearly 1,000 Pakistani soldiers have died fighting insurgents over the past year. And the army, under pressure from the US and other Western powers, appears increasingly unwilling to engage the well armed, battle hardened and cunning insurgents waging civil war against the state. The number of military fatalities has climbed after July when last year's peace deal was called off by militants in North Waziristan and the army flushed out armed jehadis besieging Islamabad's Red Mosque July 11.
An increasing number of retired Pakistani military officers and analysts also question the army's motivation to fight what many Pakistanis believe to be "someone else's war". "Public resentment against the military as an institution is as high as one can ever recall and growing," declared Adil Najam, a professor at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in the US and founding editor of Pakistaniat.com. Writing in The News, he declared that not since 1971 - when the Pakistani Army was bested by India's, leading to the formation of Bangladesh - has the country's military been under such internal strain. However, he goes on to say that despite the strain it remains a "professional institution"....
But a shocking setback to the army's reputation came Aug 30 when nearly 250 soldiers along with their colonel and nine middle-ranking officers surrendered to militants in South Waziristan without a fight... "For all practical purposes, the state has lost its authority and is in full retreat especially in Waziristan and Bajaur," said former Lt. Gen. Talat Masood. He termed the Pakistani soldiers' capitulation an "abject surrender"...
The US, which has donated nearly $10 billion to Pakistan, mostly in military hardware and equipment since 9/11, has been insistent in demanding that Musharraf become more pro-active fighting Islamists in the border regions. Washington enacted a law earlier this year linking US aid to Pakistan's performance in the war on terror...
Pakistan's retired Brigadier Shaukat Quadir is of the view that the army's morale is low and the idea of killing its own citizens has become an increasingly difficult burden for it to bear. "Perhaps they are not convinced to fight against their own people," concurred retired Major General Naseerullah Babar, a former interior minister....
Under siege from both within and without, the Pakistan Army will be forced to take a call on its future course of action. Jettisoning Musharraf and going back to the barracks just might help it resurrect its declining image.
(Brigadier (retd) Arun Sahgal heads the Centre for Strategic Studies in New Delhi and can be contacted at arunsahgal@hotmail.com. Rahul Bedi is a writer on military affairs. He can be reached at shahji@spectranet.com)

After Musharraf: What the future holds for Pakistan—and for America
by Joshua Hammer
Last November, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a bipartisan think tank in Washington, D.C., brought together more than two dozen former high-level United States government officials to take part in a half-day exercise on the future of Pakistan. In the room were former assistant secretaries of state and career ambassadors, as well as former senior officials from the Pentagon, the CIA, the Treasury, and USAID; it was a veritable who’s who of Washington’s Pakistan experts. The sponsors presented an escalating series of fictional crises—growing violence along the Pakistani-Afghan border, mass protests against the government by radical Islamists, the arrest of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto shortly after her return from exile—and asked participants how they would respond to rising chaos in the nuclear-armed state.... in what looks like a coup attempt, troops surround the houses of both Musharraf and Shaukat Aziz, the prime minister. Hours later, the U.S. ambassador receives a call from a previously unknown Pakistani two-star general, “raising serious concerns,” according to the scenario playbook, “over whether the chain of command in Pakistan has remained intact.” ...
" The Pakistan army is bleeding for you people.... This is not our battle. This is your battle, and we’re paying the price....We know that the United States tomorrow won’t hesitate to forget us. They’ve done it before,” he said. The only reason that Musharraf had signed on to the war on terrorism, he said, was that his government “has a gun to its head, and it has no other options.” He returned to the theme that Pakistan was fighting a proxy war for an untrustworthy ally. “If we had to face bullets [to save Pakistan], we’d go, but why do that for someone who’s not loyal to you [when Pakistan is not threatened]? This is not our war..."...
America may best serve its interests, then, by pulling off a balancing act: reinforcing ties to the existing power structure in Pakistan (the armed forces) while at the same time pushing hard for democracy....

We can attack Iran, says top US commander
By Alex Spillius in Washington
America's top military officer said the country does have the resources to attack Iran, despite the strain of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Adm Michael Mullen, who took over as chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff three weeks ago, said diplomacy remained the priority in dealing with Iran's suspected plans to develop a nuclear weapon and its support for anti-US insurgents in Iraq. But at a press conference he said: "there is more than enough reserve to respond (militarily) if that, in fact, is what the national leadership wanted to do".
Defence Secretary Robert Gates warned that Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons could set off an arms race in the Middle East. "The risk of an accident or a miscalculation or of those weapons or materials falling into the hands of terrorists seem to me to be substantially increased," he added.
The two leaders appeared together just days after George W Bush raised the spectre of "World War Three" if Iran went nuclear....
Adm Mullen did not elaborate on what size of assault would be feasible, but earlier reports have said the Pentagon had laid out contingency plans for a major aerial campaign against suspected nuclear targets in Iran...Early this year the US navy moved a second aircraft carrier with battleships into the Gulf, its biggest build up of military power there since the months leading to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, leading to speculation that it was prepared to launch air strikes at any time....
Iran's foreign minister said yesterday that his country is ready to establish nuclear energy cooperation with other countries, based on the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). "The Islamic Republic of Iran is prepared to cooperate with other countries in the nuclear field with a peaceful purpose," said Manouchehr Mottaki during a visit to the western Afghan city of Herat for a conference.

Myanmar's "Saffron Revolution": The Geopolitics behind the Protest Movement
By F. William Engdahl
Global Research

Burma’s "Saffron Revolution," like the Ukraine "Orange Revolution" or the Georgia "Rose Revolution" and the various Color Revolutions instigated in recent years against strategic states surrounding Russia, is a well-orchestrated exercise in Washington-run regime change, down to the details of "hit-and-run" protests with "swarming" mobs of Buddhists in saffron, internet blogs, mobile SMS links between protest groups, well-organized protest cells which disperse and reform. CNN made the blunder during a September broadcast of mentioning the active presence of the NED behind the protests in Myanmar.

Behind the recent CNN news pictures of streams of saffron-robed Buddhist Monks marching in the streets of the former capital city Rangoon (Yangon) in Myanmar the US government still prefers to call it by the British colonial name, Burma calling for more democracy, is a battle of major geopolitical consequence....
The tragedy of Burma, whose land area is about the size of George W. Bush’s Texas, is that its population is being used as a human stage prop in a drama scripted in Washington by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the George Soros Open Society Institute, Freedom House and Gene Sharp’s Albert Einstein Institution, a US intelligence asset used to spark "non-violent" regime change around the world on behalf of the US strategic agenda.
Burma’s "Saffron Revolution," like the Ukraine "Orange Revolution" or the Georgia "Rose Revolution" and the various Color Revolutions instigated in recent years against strategic states surrounding Russia, is a well-orchestrated exercise in Washington-run regime change, down to the details of "hit-and-run" protests with "swarming" mobs of Buddhists in saffron, internet blogs, mobile SMS links between protest groups, well-organized protest cells which disperse and reform. CNN made the blunder during a September broadcast of mentioning the active presence of the NED behind the protests in Myanmar.
In fact the US State Department admits to supporting the activities of the NED in Myanmar. The NED is a US Government-funded "private" entity whose activities are designed to support US foreign policy objectives, doing today what the CIA did during the Cold War. As well the NED funds Soros’ Open Society Institute in fostering regime change in Myanmar. In an October 30 2003 Press Release the State Department admitted, "The United States also supports organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy, the Open Society Institute and Internews, working inside and outside the region on a broad range of democracy promotion activities." It all sounds very self-effacing and noble of the State Department. Is it though?
In reality the US State Department has recruited and trained key opposition leaders from numerous anti-government organizations. It has poured the relatively huge sum (for Myanmar) of more than $2.5 million annually into NED activities in promoting regime change in Myanmar since at least 2003. The US regime change, its Saffron Revolution, is being largely run according to informed reports, out of the US Consulate General in bordering Chaing Mai, Thailand. There activists are recruited and trained, in some cases directly in the USA, before being sent back to organize inside Myanmar. The USA’s NED admits to funding key opposition media including the New Era Journal, Irrawaddy and the Democratic Voice of Burma radio.
The concert-master of the tactics of Saffron monk-led non-violence regime change is Gene Sharp, founder of the deceptively-named Albert Einstein Institution in Cambridge Massachusetts, a group funded by an arm of the NED to foster US-friendly regime change in key spots around the world. Sharp’s institute has been active in Burma since 1989, just after the regime massacred some 3000 protestors to silence the opposition. CIA special operative and former US Military Attache in Rangoon, Col. Robert Helvey, an expert in clandestine operations, introduced Sharp to Burma in 1989 to train the opposition there in non-violent strategy. Interestingly, Sharp was also in China two weeks before the dramatic events at Tiananmen Square.

A relevant question is why the US Government has such a keen interest in fostering regime change in Myanmar at this juncture... Geopolitical control seems to be the answer. Control ultimately of the strategic sea lanes from the Persian Gulf to the South China Sea. The coastline of Myanmar provides naval access in the proximity of one of the world’s most strategic water passages, the Strait of Malacca, the narrow ship passage between Malaysia and Indonesia.
The Pentagon has been trying to militarize the region since September 11, 2001 on the argument of defending against possible terrorist attack. The US has managed to gain an airbase on Banda Aceh, the Sultan Iskandar Muda Air Force Base, on the northernmost tip of Indonesia. The governments of the region, including Myanmar, however, have adamantly refused US efforts to militarize the region. A glance at a map will confirm the strategic importance of Myanmar.

The Strait of Malacca, linking the Indian and Pacific Oceans, is the shortest sea route between the Persian Gulf and China. It is the key chokepoint in Asia. More than 80% of all China’s oil imports are shipped by tankers passing the Malacca Strait. The narrowest point is the Phillips Channel in the Singapore Strait, only 1.5 miles wide at its narrowest. Daily more than 12 million barrels in oil supertankers pass through this narrow passage, most en route to the world’s fastest-growing energy market, China or to Japan.
If the strait were closed, nearly half of the world's tanker fleet would be required to sail further. Closure would immediately raise freight rates worldwide. More than 50,000 vessels per year transit the Strait of Malacca. The region from Maynmar to Banda Aceh in Indonesia is fast becoming one of the world’s most strategic chokepoints. Who controls those waters controls China’s energy supplies.

Since it became clear to China that the US was hell-bent on a unilateral militarization of the Middle East oil fields in 2003, Beijing has stepped up its engagement in Myanmar.... Beijing has poured billions of dollars in military assistance into Myanmar, including fighter, ground-attack and transport aircraft; tanks and armored personnel carriers; naval vessels and surface-to-air missiles. China has built up Myanmar railroads and roads and won permission to station its troops in Myanmar. China, according to Indian defense sources, has also built a large electronic surveillance facility on Myanmar’s Coco Islands and is building naval bases for access to the Indian Ocean... Myanmar is an integral part of what China terms its "string of pearls," its strategic design of establishing military bases in Myanmar, Thailand and Cambodia in order to counter US control over the Strait of Malacca chokepoint. There is also energy on and offshore of Myanmar, and lots of it.

Oil and gas have been produced in Myanmar since the British set up the Rangoon Oil Company in 1871, later renamed Burmah Oil Co. The country has produced natural gas since the 1970’s, and in the 1990’s it granted gas concessions to the foreign companies ElfTotal of France and Premier Oil of the UK in the Gulf of Martaban. Later Texaco and Unocal (now Chevron) won concessions at Yadana and Yetagun as well. Alone Yadana has an estimated gas reserve of more than 5 trillion cubic feet with an expected life of at least 30 years. Yetagun is estimated to have about a third the gas of the Yadana field.
In 2004 a large new gas field, Shwe field, off the coast of Arakan was discovered. By 2002 both Texaco and Premier Oil withdrew from the Yetagun project following UK government and NGO pressure. Malaysia’s Petronas bought Premier’s 27% stake. By 2004 Myanmar was exporting Yadana gas via pipeline to Thailand worth annually $1 billion to the Myanmar regime. In 2005 China, Thailand and South Korea invested in expanding the Myanmar oil and gas sector, with export of gas to Thailand rising 50%. Gas export today is Myanmar’s most important source of income. Yadana was developed jointly by ElfTotal, Unocal, PTT-EP of Thailand and Myanmar’s state MOGE, operated by the French ElfTotal. Yadana supplies some 20% of Thai natural gas needs. Today the Yetagun field is operated by Malaysia’s Petronas along with MOGE and Japan’s Nippon Oil and PTT-EP. The gas is piped onshore where it links to the Yadana pipeline. Gas from the Shwe field is to come online beginning 2009. China and India have been in strong contention over the Shwe gas field reserves.

This past summer Myanmar signed a Memorandum of Understanding with PetroChina to supply large volumes of natural gas from reserves of the Shwe gasfield in the Bay of Bengal. The contract runs for 30 years. India was the main loser. Myanmar had earlier given India a major stake in two offshore blocks to develop gas to have been transmitted via pipeline through Bangladesh to India’s energy-hungry economy. Political bickering between India and Bangladesh brought the Indian plans to a standstill.
China took advantage of the stalemate. China simply trumped India with an offer to invest billions in building a strategic China-Myanmar oil and gas pipeline across Myanmar from Myanmar’s deepwater port at Sittwe in the Bay of Bengal to Kunming in China’s Yunnan Province, a stretch of more than 2,300 kilometers. China plans an oil refinery in Kumming as well.

What the Myanmar-China pipelines will allow is routing of oil and gas from Africa (Sudan among other sources) and the Middle East (Iran, Saudi Arabia) independent of dependence on the vulnerable chokepoint of the Malacca Strait. Myanmar becomes China’s "bridge" linking Bangladesh and countries westward to the China mainland independent of any possible future moves by Washington to control the strait.

It’s no wonder that China is taking such precautions. Ever since the Bush Administration decided in 2005 to recruit India to the Pentagon’s ‘New Framework for US-India Defense Relations,’India has been pushed into a strategic alliance with Washington in order to counter China in Asia.
In an October 2002 Pentagon report, ‘The Indo-US Military Relationship,’ the Office of Net Assessments stated the reason for the India-USA defense alliance would be to have a ‘capable partner’ who can take on ‘more responsibility for low-end operations’ in Asia, provide new training opportunities and ‘ultimately provide basing and access for US power projection.’ Washington is also quietly negotiating a base on Indian territory, a severe violation of India’s traditional non-aligned status.

Power projection against whom? China, perhaps?
As well, the Bush Administration has offered India to lift its 30 year nuclear sanctions and to sell advanced US nuclear technology, legitimizing India’s open violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, at the same time Washington accuses Iran of violating same, an exercise in political hypocrisy to say the least. Notably, just as the Saffron-robed monks of Myanmar took to the streets, the Pentagon opened joint US-Indian joint naval exercises, Malabar 07, along with armed forces from Australia, Japan and Singapore. The US showed the awesome muscle of its 7th Fleet, deploying the aircraft carriers USS Nimitz and USS Kitty Hawk; guided missile cruisers USS Cowpens and USS Princeton and no less than five guided missile destroyers. US-backed regime change in Myanmar together with Washington’s growing military power projection via India and other allies in the region is clearly a factor in Beijing’s policy vis-à-vis Myanmar’s present military junta. As is often the case these days, from Darfur to Caracas to Rangoon, the rallying call of Washington for democracy ought to be tasted with at least a grain of good salt.

F. William Engdahl is the author of A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, Pluto Press Ltd.. To contact by e-mail: info@engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net. Further articles can be found at his website, www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net.
F. William Engdahl is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
His most recent book, forthcoming with Global Research, is Seeds of Destruction, The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation.

* Digest note: more on U.S. 'STRATEGIC NON-VIOLENCE' behind so-called 'color revolutions': digest 10/5/7 Myanmar/Burma Dilemma: "Soft Power: Democracy-Promotion and U.S. NGOs" http://www.burbankdigest.com/ subscribe: lizburbank@speakeasy.net

"Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy"
Henry Kissinger

Putin on U.S. in Ira
AP President Vladimir Putin, in his latest jab at Washington, suggested Thursday that the U.S. military campaign in Iraq was a "pointless" battle against the Iraqi people, aimed in part at seizing the country's oil reserves...a mechanic from the Siberian city of Novosibirsk asked Mr. Putin about comments he said were made some years ago by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who suggested that Siberia had too many natural resources to belong to one country. "I know that some politicians play with such ideas in their heads. This, in my view, is the sort of political erotica that might satisfy a person but hardly leads to a positive result," Mr. Putin responded. "The best example of that are the events in Iraq -- a small country that can hardly defend itself and which possesses huge oil reserves. And we see what's going on there. They've learned to shoot there, but they are not managing to bring order."
"One can wipe off a political map some tyrannical regime … but it's absolutely pointless to fight with a people," he said. "Russia, thank God, isn't Iraq. It has enough strength and power to defend itself and its interests, both on its territory and in other parts of the world."

The Chinese Century
...barring Mao's resurrection or nuclear cataclysm, nothing is likely to keep China down for long. Since 1978, its gross domestic product has risen fourfold; in straight dollar terms, China's economy is the world's sixth-largest, with a G.D.P. of around $1.4 trillion. It has gone from being virtually absent in international trade to the world's third-most-active trading nation, behind the U.S. and Germany and ahead of Japan. Tom Saler, a financial journalist, has pointed out that 21 recessions, a depression, two stock-market crashes and two world wars were not able to stop the U.S. economy's growth, over the last century, from $18 billion ($367 billion in 2000 dollars) to $10 trillion. In constant dollars, that is a 27-fold increase.
China is poised for similar growth in this century.... If any country is going to supplant the U.S. in the world marketplace, China is it.

Containing China Strategy may herald the next cold war.
Much influenced by Zbigniew Brzezinski, whose 1997 book, "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Geostrategic Imperatives," first highlighted the critical importance of Central Asia, these strategists sought to counter Chinese inroads. Although Brzezinski himself has largely been excluded from elite Republican circles because of his association with the much despised Carter administration, his call for a coordinated U.S. drive to dominate both the eastern and western rimlands of China has been embraced by senior administration strategists.
In this way, Washington's concern over growing Chinese influence in Southeast Asia has come to be intertwined with the U.S. drive for hegemony in the Persian Gulf and Central Asia. This has given China policy an even more elevated significance in Washington -- and helps explain its return with a passion despite the seemingly all-consuming preoccupations of the war in Iraq....
In signing the nuclear pact with India, Bush did not allude to the administration's anti-Chinese agenda, saying only that it would lay the foundation for a "durable defense relationship." But few have been fooled by this vague characterization. According to a recent article by Weisman in the New York Times, most U.S. lawmakers view the nuclear accord as an expression of the administration's desire to convert India into "a counterweight to China."
Accompanying all these diplomatic initiatives has been a vigorous, if largely unheralded, effort by the Department of Defense (DoD) to bolster U.S. military capabilities in the Asia-Pacific region.
The broad sweep of American strategy was first spelled out in the Pentagon's most recent policy assessment, the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), released on Feb. 5. In discussing long-term threats to U.S. security, the QDR begins with a reaffirmation of the overarching precept first articulated in the DPG of 1992: that the United States will not allow the rise of a competing superpower. This country "will attempt to dissuade any military competitor from developing disruptive or other capabilities that could enable regional hegemony or hostile action against the United States," the document states. It then identifies China as the most likely and dangerous competitor of this sort. "Of the major and emerging powers, China has the greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States and field disruptive military technologies that could over time offset traditional U.S. military advantages" -- then adding the kicker, "absent U.S. counter strategies."
According to the Pentagon, the task of countering future Chinese military capabilities largely entails the development, and then procurement, of major weapons systems that would ensure U.S. success in any full-scale military confrontation. "The United States will develop capabilities that would present any adversary with complex and multidimensional challenges and complicate its offensive planning efforts," the QDR explains. These include the steady enhancement of such "enduring U.S. advantages" as "long-range strike, stealth, operational maneuver and sustainment of air, sea, and ground forces at strategic distances, air dominance, and undersea warfare."

Preparing for war with China, in other words...

Honoring the Dalai Lama
October 18, 2007
NYT Editorial
It is a given that whenever the Dalai Lama is honored, China’s Communist leaders lash out. It happened when the Tibetan spiritual leader, and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, was received by German Chancellor Angela Merkel last month, and it happened again yesterday when the Dalai Lama met with President Bush and was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal in Washington.
The Dalai Lama said yesterday that he felt “regret” over the tensions. It is our hope that leaders will continue to ignore China’s protests and threats, and that by continuing to honor the Dalai Lama they will finally persuade Beijing to open serious talks about granting autonomy to Tibet.
The Dalai Lama, who fled Tibet in 1959 after the Chinese Army crushed an uprising there, is a powerful symbol of Tibet’s resistance to China’s suppression of its religious culture. In Beijing-speak, the Dalai Lama is a “splittist,” someone out to split off a chunk of China...
We would like to think that the spiritual leader’s lifelong dedication to nonviolence and tolerance might also rub off on some of the people he meets in Washington. “Through violence, you may solve one problem, but you sow the seeds for another,” is one of his statements that politicians everywhere might meditate upon. Or this: “The world has become so small that no nation can solve its problems alone, in isolation from others.”


Speeches by the president and the top leaders of each party emphasized the Dalai Lama’s humble beginnings and humanitarian achievements, as well as a long history of American support for him. He was also lauded by the Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, a fellow Nobel Peace Prize laureate and a previous winner of the Congressional Gold Medal, which is cast in the image of the recipient.... Beijing offered a sharp new rebuke of the award ceremony, which the top Chinese religious affairs official condemned as a “farce.”...“I don’t think it ever damages relations,” he said, “when an American president talks about, you know — religious tolerance and religious freedom is good for a nation.”...

Declassified documents shed new light on American support to Dalai Lama
Arthur J Pais in New York
September 16, 1998

Just as the United States Congress, following intense pro-Tibet lobbying by the likes of movie star Richard Gere, has urged the administration to spend annually $ 2 million in support of the Tibetan exiles, in addition to the $ 2 million annually in funding for Tibetan exiles in India, comes a revelation that could embarrass the Tibetan cause. The Central Intelligence Agency has stoutly refused to discuss its involvement in the Tibetan struggle but the story in Tuesday's Los Angeles Times blows the lid off the Tibetan operation.
The declassified historical documents provide the first inside details of the CIA's decade-long covert programme to support the Tibetan independence movement. Part of the efforts was enlisting prestigious universities as Cornell in creating Tibetan study programmes. At the time of the intelligence operation, the CIA was seeking to weaken Mao Zedong's hold over China. And the Tibetan exiles were looking for help to keep their movement alive after the Dalai Lama and his people following an unsuccessful 1959 revolt against Chinese rule...
The money for the Tibetans and the Dalai Lama was part of the CIA's worldwide effort during the height of the Cold War to undermine Communist governments, particularly in the Soviet Union and China. In fact, the US government committee that approved the Tibetan operations also authorised the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, the Times said....
The documents, published last month by the State Department, illustrate the historical background of the situation in Tibet today, in which China continues to accuse the Dalai Lama of being an agent of foreign forces seeking to separate Tibet from China, the Times said.
The programme encompassed support of Tibetan guerrillas in Nepal, a covert military training site in Colorado, 'Tibet Houses' established to promote Tibetan causes in New York and Geneva, education for Tibetan operatives at Cornell University and supplies for reconnaissance teams.
"The purpose of the programme ... is to keep the political concept of an autonomous Tibet alive within Tibet and among foreign nations, principally India, and to build a capability for resistance against possible political developments inside Communist China," explains one memo written by top US intelligence officials.

No rah-rah revolt: Nepalese have lost their fear of repression and are making a genuine, old-fashioned revolution
Tariq Ali
Tuesday April 25, 2006
There is something refreshingly old-fashioned taking place in the Himalayan kingdom of Nepal: a genuine revolution. In recognition of this, the US has told citizens except for "essential diplomats" to leave the country, usually a good sign. Since April 6, Nepal has been paralysed by a general strike called by the political parties and backed by Maoist guerrillas. Hundreds of thousands are out on the streets - several have been shot dead and more than 200 wounded. A curfew is in force and the army has been given shoot-to-kill orders.But the people have lost their fear and it is this that makes them invincible. If a single platoon refuses to obey orders, the Bastille will fall and the palace will be stormed. Another crowned head will fall very soon. A caretaker government will organise free elections to a constituent assembly, and this will determine the future shape of the country.
The lawyers, journalists, students and the poor demonstrating in Kathmandu also know that if they are massacred, the armed guerrillas who control 80% of the countryside will take the country. This is not one of those carefully orchestrated "orange" affairs with its mass-produced placards, rah-rah gals and giant PR firms to aid media coverage, so loved by the "international community". Nor does the turbulence have anything to do with religion. What is taking place in Nepal is different: it is the culmination of decades of social, cultural and economic oppression. This is an old story. Nepal's upper-caste Hindu rulers have institutionalised ancient customs to preserve their own privileges...
The Nepalese monarchy, established more than two centuries ago, has held the country in an iron grip, usually by entering into alliances with dominant powers - Britain, the US and, lately, India - and keeping them supplied with cheap mercenaries. It is a two-way trade and ever since the declaration of the "war on terror", the corrupt and brutal royal apparatus has been supplied with weaponry by its friends: 20,000 M-16 rifles from Washington, 20,000 rifles from Delhi and 100 helicopters from London. Meanwhile, half the country's 28 million people have no access to electricity or running water, let alone healthcare and education, according to the UN.... Tariq Ali is an editor of New Left Review tariq.ali3@btinternet.com

United Nations' 1948 definition of genocide: an action intended “to destroy in whole, or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group”.

United Nations' 1948 definition of genocide: an action intended “to destroy in whole, or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group”

Race Torture in West Virginia
Wednesday, 17 October 2007
by Ashahed M. Muhammad

Police say 20-year-old Megan Williams of Charleston, West Virginia was held captive in a chamber of horrors while six Caucasian perpetrators physically assaulted, raped and tortured her for five days.
"We received a tip that a subject was being held against their will at Big Creek," said Logan County Deputy Jeffrey Robinette. "Typically this involves a welfare check to see if someone is in need or injured."
Overshadowed by the huge demonstration in Jena, Louisiana, a case of rape and unspeakable torture of a 20-year-old West Virginia Black woman by a gang of mountain whites straight out of the movie, Deliverance got the attention of few news outlets other than the Nation of Islam's Final Call. The six alleged perpetrators face long prison terms, but young Megan Williams' ordeal may be beyond human cloture. The crime involves all the elements of racist domination and depravity: sexual abuse, mutilation, the most foul and taboo degradations - an almost unimaginable series of violations perpetrated against a helpless Black woman who clearly represented an entire race in the sick minds of her tormentors.

Deputy Robinette said that in a search of the residence, a wooden handle stick with "brownish and reddish stains on the stick" was found, which corroborates anal sodomy. He also said they found a knife with "red stains and spots on it." In addition investigators found fly swatters, rolls of duct tape, phone cords, all instruments of brutality used against Megan Williams during her captivity... the house was in a state of "disarray" with garbage strewn about the premises. This was some of the physical evidence obtained at the scene supporting the claim of the many heinous acts of torture and violence Megan Williams had to endure, and was all consistent with Megan's recollection of events and the signed written confessions of two other defendants.
According to the signed confession by one of the defendants, Bobby Brewster, Megan was forced to "eat human sh-t out of the toilet and rat turds," and to "lick mom's a-- crack." According to the confession read in court, Megan vomited and then was forced to lick her own vomit off of the floor. The entire time, she was beaten and called names such as "slut, whore, b---h and n----r." Brewster's statement also corroborated the stories of Megan being forced to perform oral sex on Frankie Brewster, as well as Megan being "choked until purple in the face."

On Oct. 18, 1968, the United States Olympic Committee suspended two black athletes, Tommie Smith and John Carlos, for giving a "black power" salute as a protest during a victory ceremony in Mexico City.


Black Psychiatrist's Intervention Calms Bill Cosby
Cosby gets to the heart of his secular ministry: "People must realize that the Revolution is in their apartment...and then they can fight systemic and institutionalized racism." ... Despite Dr. Poussaint's reasoned statements on the racially-skewed criminal justice system, the following two sentences reveal a frightening authorial mindset: "To be sure, the justice system disfavors black males, and some are in the system who should not be. But tragically, too many of our sons deserve to be right where they are." ...
The plural pronoun in our next bite from the book indicates Dr. Poussaint and Dr. Cosby are of the same mind: "We're not saying there is no discrimination or racial profiling today, but there is less than there was in 1950. These are not ‘political' criminals. These are people selling drugs, stealing, or shooting their buddies over trivia." . What do they mean, there is less racial profiling today than in 1950?...The authors have confused the arbitrary harassment of past generations of African Americans with recent decades of a systematic public policy of selective Black mass incarceration - which begins with hyper-surveillance and profiling on a community-wide scale. That's why the prisons are full of Blacks.
A high Justice Department official recently admitted that the increase in the U.S. prison population since 1975 "...wasn't really about crime. It was about how we chose to respond to crime." Hyper-surveillance, a form of mega-profiling, has achieved levels of Black imprisonment undreamed of in 1950 or 1960 or 1970. As BAR's Bruce Dixon writes in the October 10 issue, "Government, the state itself has been refashioned into a punitive and carceral machine whose main function is to contain and control this unworthy, dishonored and dangerous poor and black population."...
... books like Come On People are great diversions from the tasks at hand - more, they are weapons to bludgeon Black people and "culture." ...
Dr. Alvin Poussaint has had a calming effect on Bill Cosby, for the time being. But the core Cosby still keeps struggling to break out in the new book and in interviews. To the extent this keeps Cosby in the public eye, an enthusiastic indicter of the culture and lifestyles of the Black poor, Dr. Poussaint becomes, not the troubled comedian's reasonable and coherent alter-ego and counselor, but his Black-bashing enabler.
Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com

When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.
Sinclair Lewis

The Window Is Closing: Pentagon Sought Citizens' Bank Records
By The Associated Press
The American Civil Liberties Union said Sunday that newly uncovered documents show that the Pentagon secretly sent hundreds of letters seeking the financial records of private citizens without court approval.

The US arms industry is backing Hillary Clinton for President and has all but abandoned its traditional allies in the Republican party. Clinton has also emerged as Wall Street's favourite.

The Senate Intelligence Committee approved a measure that would grant immunity to telecom companies for their role
in assisting government surveillance programs.

US to Build 14 Bases in Iraq: Finnish MP
The United States is planning to stay in Iraq by building as many as 14 "permanent" bases, regardless of whether orders come from current or future US administrations to bring US troops back home. "As far I am informed, they are planning to set up permanent bases. Not only one, two, three, four, but maybe 14," Finnish MP Jaakko Laakso told a group of Saudi journalists, which included Arab News, who visited the Finnish Parliament recently in Helsinki. "It means there will be no withdrawal on a permanent basis." The MP pointed out that the bases were not the bases the US government plans to build between the Iraq and Syria borders, but permanent bases located in the heartland of the country. "There is no difference between Republicans and Democrats regarding these permanent bases," Laakso added.... http://www.uruknet.de/?p=37369

How Clinton Set the Stage for Bush
By Mark H. Gaffney
Today, many Americans hold G. W. Bush personally responsible for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere... I take issue with those who still naively believe in a partisan solution. The truth is more complex. In fact, the previous Democratic administration of William Jefferson Clinton bears a large measure of responsibility for the disasters that have befallen us. In many ways the Clinton White House set the stage for George W. Bush. Dr. Helen Caldicott, the tireless campaigner against nuclear oblivion, writes that she got the wake-up call about Clinton in 1999 when she was invited to attend a meeting in Florida about the weaponization of space: “To my horror I found that seventy-five military industrial corporations such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, TRW Aerojet, Hughes Space, Sparta Corp, and Vista Technologies had produced a Long Range Plan, written with the cooperation of the US Space Command, announcing a declaration of US space leadership and calling for the funding of defensive system and ‘a seamlessly integrated force of theatre land, sea, air and space capabilities through a world-wide global defense information network.’ The US Space Command would also ‘hold at risk’ a finite number of ‘high-value’ earth targets with near instantaneous force application–––the ability to kill from space...I also discovered that the much-vaunted missile defense system was to be closely integrated with the weaponization of space, and that all of the hardware and software would be made by the same firms, at the combined cost of hundreds of billions of dollars to the US taxpayers.”[1]

The plan envisaged “full spectrum dominance,” that is, US military domination of land, sea, air and space. Although US planners sought to portray this next generation of technological wizardry as defensive, in actuality, the planned systems, if implemented, amounted to a major break with the 1972 ABM Treaty, and with long-standing US commitments to maintain the peaceful status of outer space. The cold logic of dominance meant that the project was offensive in nature. But why? Exactly who was to be targeted? Which enemies? Remember, this was 1999. The Cold War had been over for some years. Both Russia and the US were then cooperating to reduce the size of their nuclear arsenals. The START reductions were limited, to be sure, but the process was moving in the right direction and further reductions were possible. Obviously, the US military’s sweeping new plans for the domination of space threatened to undo all of this progress toward a more sane planet.... in November 1997, Clinton issued a presidential directive, PDD-60, formalizing the outcome of his nuclear policy review. Most of the document remained classified, but more than enough was released to serve notice to the world that the United States had now become a far greater threat to the nonproliferation treaty than any terrorist or rogue state.[7] Clinton’s directive flew squarely in the face of the noble principles he had agreed to at the 1995 NPT conference. The directive reaffirmed the logic of the Cold War and announced a cornucopia of new spending to be showered upon the nuclear establishment over the next two decades. The directive announced that the US would maintain the status quo, that is, the Cold War triad of nuclear forces (i.e., bombers, ICBMs and submarines) as well as the hair-trigger launch-on-warning posture. The US insisted upon the right to nuclear first-use and even the right to use nukes against non-nuclear states that might somehow threaten US “interests.” These shocking revelations were unprecedented. The US also rejected a Russian proposal for deeper cuts in the number of strategic warheads. Instead, the US would move ahead with plans to upgrade the US Trident missile force and the B-2 bomber. The US would also resume production of plutonium pits, which are the fissile cores used in nuclear weapons. The directive reaffirmed the new emphasis on sub-critical testing and advanced computer modeling procedures: the very thing that Hans Bethe had cautioned against. Additionally, the US announced that it would resume production of tritium, an isotope of hydrogen used in thermonuclear weapons. The stated purpose was to provide additional supplies for the stewardship program. Because tritium has a half-life of twelve years, the tritium gas used in nuclear weapons decays and periodically must be replenished. Even so, the explanation was dubious, since tritium can be scavenged from deactivated weapons and recycled. Given even modest reductions in the size of the US nuclear force, in 1997 there was at least a thirty-year supply for the stewardship program.[8] This hinted that Hans Bethe was correct and the US was already secretly developing the next generation of nukes. As if all of this were not enough, the directive also announced that the US would complete construction of a brand new National Ignition Facility (NIF) at the Lawrence Livermore laboratory, where the world’s most powerful lasers would be used to study nuclear fusion–––another clue.
These policies had been decided with no public debate or consultations with Congress....
The more fundamental problem is that he chose to serve a small group of rich and powerful men, instead of serving the nation....
[digest: as though all capitalist politicians and parties very existence and job is not to serve the state and its bipartisan ruling class.]

'Balanced' fascist state infrastructure:
Security, science panel is suggested
A new commission should be established to help balance the need for scientific openness and security concerns in a world facing terrorism, the National Research Council urged Thursday.

Report: Medicare Drug Plan a $15 Billion Rip-Off in 2007:
The law, drafted by Big Pharma's lobbyists, says Medicare can't bargain over price.

UK museum cancels scientist's lecture
LONDON -- A Nobel prize-winning scientist who reportedly[sic] claimed Africans and Europeans had different levels of intelligence is no longer welcome to deliver a lecture at London's Science Museum, the museum said Wednesday.
James Watson, who won the Nobel Prize for co-discovering DNA, drew widespread outrage when he told The Sunday Times that Africans and Europeans did not share the same brain power.
The newspaper quoted the 79-year-old American geneticist as saying he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really. He told the paper he hoped that everyone was equal, but added: "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true."
On Wednesday The Independent newspaper put Watson on its front page, against the words: "Africans are less intelligent than Westerners, says DNA pioneer."
The Independent catalogued what it said were a series of controversial statements from Watson, including one in which he reportedly suggested women should have the right to abort their unborn children if tests could determine they would grow into homosexuals... In 2000 Watson shocked an audience at the University of California, Berkeley, when he advanced his theory about a link between skin color and sex drive. His lecture, complete with slides of bikini-clad women, argued that extracts of melanin - which give skin its color - had been found to boost subjects' sex drive. "That's why you have Latin lovers," he said,

Gates Foundation looks to fight malaria
Malaria kills more than a million people each year, most of them children. Deaths doubled in Africa over the past 20 years as malaria grew resistant to existing drugs and insecticides. New efforts to control the spread of the disease and develop new medicine and vaccines are starting to show results, according to a UNICEF report...Four new vaccines are being prepared for large scale testing on humans as early as 2008. After the Gates' presentation, conference participants said eradication should be possible as long as people and groups like the Gates Foundation continue to provide support. Cooperation among those fighting the disease and developing vaccines, medications and insect control is key to achieving eradication... Margaret Chan, director general of the World Health Organization...

Academic freedom on campus:
"Academic colleagues, get used to it," warned the pro-Israel activist Martin Kramer in March 2004. "Yes, you are being watched. Those obscure articles in campus newspapers are now available on the Internet, and they will be harvested. Your syllabi, which you've also posted, will be scrutinized. Your Web sites will be visited late at night."