Bottom line – it’s a great watch, maybe even important. Particularly for viewers abroad. Because these nutters, who are a handful of extremists, are calling the shots in the West Bank today. And they can do whatever they want because government after government in Israel allows them to. And guess who allows those Israeli governments to do that? American president after American president.
This whole thing is worth watching, if only to get to the last minute of it. It’s when Louis interviews for the final time Daniel Luria, of the right wing movement Ateret Cohanim, which settles Jews in East Jerusalem. “There’s Jewish life in united Jerusalem”, he says to Louis as he looks him in the eye, “and there’s nothing – nothing – that you or the world can do about it. Nothing”.
That’s it in a nutshell. But if I may slightly correct Luria’s observation: the world has never tried to do anything about it to begin with. They’re enablers.
Hopefully, some viewers abroad will finally take responsibility and try to change that.
Gaza, Feb. 9 (BNA) Eleven Palestinians were wounded in Israeli fighter jets attacks, the F 16 attacked several targets in Gaza Strip earlier today.
According to the Palestinian News Agency (WAFA) nine citizens including two women and four children were taken to Kamal Adwan Hospital after the missile attack on a workshop in north-east of Gaza. The bombing caused severe damage on a carpentry store leading it to burst into fire, as well as a pharmaceutical storehouse that belonged to the Health Ministry. The fighter jets targeted several other locations of Gaza, including a farming land east of Al-Zaytoun neighborhood, fishermen and west of Khan Younis. MYZ/E M.
Influential U.S. lawmakers have eased their threats to cut aid to Egypt, reflecting a growing consensus in Washington for preserving U.S. leverage with Egypt’s powerful military amid the country’s civil upheaval.
The shift comes as Obama administration officials, the Pentagon and powerful pro-Israel groups in Washington urge continued aid to Egypt, about $1.5 billion a year, mostly in military assistance.
Although protesters in Cairo are demanding that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak resign immediately, the Obama administration is urging a more gradual reform process, headed by Vice President Omar Suleiman, that would allow Mubarak to remain in office for now.
U.S. officials believe the military should play a crucial role in that process and deserves continued support. Pro-Israel groups fear that a loss of aid could jeopardize Israel’s security.
Just last week, a chorus of lawmakers backed protesters’ demands for Mubarak’s resignation, and some called for an aid freeze to force changes.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) had earlier said “all options are on the table,” including aid cuts. But in an interview Tuesday, he said that now “is just not the right time to threaten that.”
McCain said he was concerned that a reduction in aid might affect Egypt’s willingness to cooperate with Israel.
Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate subcommittee that oversees foreign aid, declared last week that he would not vote for aid to Egypt, adding that he knew no lawmaker who would.
This week, however, Leahy appeared to soften his position, saying through a spokesman that he would oppose any new aid “until the situation is resolved.”
White House officials said earlier in the crisis that they would review the aid if the Mubarak government didn’t move promptly toward political reform. But within a few days, officials clarified that they weren’t considering cuts to aid.
Administration officials are trying to preserve their relationship with the military, which they see as vital for carrying out political reforms.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates praised the Egyptian military Tuesday for its restraint and emphasized the need for the Egyptian government to move at a “steady pace” to enact promised reforms.
Omar Suleiman, Egypt’s vice president, tells ABC news that Egypt currently lacks the necessary “culture of democracy” for the changes demanded by protesters.
The White House press secretary Robert Gibbs has called his comments “particularly unhelpful”.
Suleiman also blamed the protests for paralysing the Egyptian economy. “The big presence in Tahrir Square and some of the satellite stations which insult Egypt … make citizens hesitant to go to work,” he said.
Suleiman added: “We cannot bear this situation for a long time and we must end this crisis as soon as possible”.
“This is such a gala for all of us, for all of us, the festival of freedom, dignity, justice, creativity and rebellion.” “A young man named Ahmed Galal said, “We are a popular revolt that establishes a new social contract, not just demands, and our slogan of this revolution is ‘equality of freedom of social justice.’ The people who made this revolution are the ones who should put the rules for the new governance, choose the transitional government, select a National Committee to change the constitution, the committee of wise men of the revolution, so as not to allow opportunists (the owners of wealth and power) to impose on us committees of wise men who did not participate with us in this revolt.”
Mr Suleiman, who is widely tipped to take over from Hosni Mubarak as president, was named as Israel’s preferred candidate for the job after discussions with American officials in 2008.
As a key figure working for Middle East peace, he once suggested that Israeli troops would be “welcome” to invade Egypt to stop weapons being smuggled to Hamas terrorists in neighbouring Gaza.
The Palestine papers are groundbreaking documents in more than one way. They show that Palestinian negotiators approached the negotiations with a set of serious propositions. But they not only demonstrate that Israel in fact has a partner for peace talks—they also present Israel with a choice. Indeed, Israel can either reclaim its democratic values and drop the transfer plan, or it can drop the pretenses and assert its position as the regional peace refuser.
Whilst Ben Ali commiserates with 1.5 tons of gold and his new Saudi hosts on the loss of his holiday homes and yachts which he and his family pilfered, the Dark Prince of Ziostan seizes upon the tyrant’s ousting as yet another reason to delay the peace talks charade. ‘Talking of Peace Talks’ is a customary game played with international elites by the Ziostanian ruling class when they are not aggressing some neighbour or Palestinians unworthy of democracy, which is perceived as a risk by Ziostan’s elite to their ‘stability, security and peace’. It is a pleasant, hands-across-the-waters effusive pastime which obscures even more enjoyable activities like home demolitions, accelerated land theft throughout the West Bank, Occupied Jerusalem and the Negev, shooting motorists, or small boys and old men who stray too close to the Gaza apartheid fence when struggling to eke out a living collecting stones and pebbles to rebuild their famous landmark – the largest civilian prison on the planet. The main game though for Ziostan, its strategy, tactic and aim, is expansionism, the taking of territory which wondrously can be justified in retrospect or even in advance, for Ziostan’s constant demand for ‘stability, security and peace’ is paramount before the most rudimentary needs for survival of those they oppress.
It is two years since Ziostan declared its massacre of the people of Gaza over, and the hideous, illegal siege remains, with the full complicity of the global political community which has chosen shining, privileged, packaged ziocolony to rule over and occupy Palestinians. Ziostan commandeered more than 3 million dunam of cultivated fields and villages during and after their genocide and expulsion of Palestinians, the Nakba, in 1948. The inconvenience of the continued presence of suffering, protesting Palestinians as a distraction from fiercely marketed tactical Ziostanian victimhood is perceived as a small price to pay in order to usurp the balance of Palestinian land and resources which Ziostan covets. Those who resist Ziostanian power even in non-violent ways, including children, are often summarily jailed, labelled terrorists and tortured. There will be no need for two states if Ziostan can appropriate all Palestinian land without resistance or approbation from the international community. The ‘talk of peace talks’ charade provides window dressing for the international ruling class and ameloriates criticism within Ziostan itself. Failure of ‘peace talks’ is routinely blamed upon Palestinians unwilling to surrender one more dunam of their indigenous birthright and heritage or to forgo the right of return guaranteed by international law. Conscience is no impediment to the elite of Ziostan, for as with other elites, Ziostanians do not flinch from their righteous dispossession of those whom they perceive as lesser humans or not human at all.
The Dark Prince remains aloof from many of his own people as he is from Palestinians and transfixed by the hunt, does not understand the lessons presently before him. Yet neither he nor the rest of his ziofascist retinue or contrived brute force, theft and calumny can withstand the people’s search for real security and peace based soundly on justice and equal rights and backed with a growing solidarity movement focussed on boycotts, divestments and sanctions. Tinpot dictatorial sociopaths with Uzis, F15s, dungeons, pain, the whole banal sex and death repertoire have limited appeal – fascistic crises and spectacles lose their lustre after their twisted motivations are exposed.
Perhaps when Nutanyahoo is finally ousted by a united people hungry for real democracy, he too can apply to Saudia for a political sinecure or respite.
“We hope that the summit will adopt Egypt’s proposal which would be a message from the Arab to the Western and European world saying ‘Do not dare interfere in our affairs”, he was quoted as saying by the official MENA news agency.
MENA said he was responding to a question from one of its journalists who asked if the summit could adopt a common position concerning Western bids to interfere in Arab affairs.
On Thursday, Clinton urged Arab leaders to work with their peoples to implement reforms or see extremists fill the void, warning the “region’s foundations are sinking”.
The region’s peoples “have grown tired of corrupt institutions”, Clinton told Arab counterparts in Qatar attending the Forum for the Future, a 2004 US initiative aimed at promoting such partnerships.
“In too many places, in too many ways, the region’s foundations are sinking into the sand. The new and dynamic Middle East that I have seen needs firmer ground if it is to take root and grow everywhere,” she said.
Clinton said the region’s leaders “in partnership with their peoples” have the capacity to build a bold new future where entrepreneurship and political freedoms are encouraged.
“It’s time to see civil society not as a threat but as a partner,” she said.
“Those who cling to the status quo may be able to hold back the full impact of their countries’ problems for a little while but not forever.
“Others will fill the vacuum,” if leaders failed to offer a positive vision to give “young people meaningful ways to contribute”, Clinton warned.
Abul Gheit also dismissed the notion that people in the Arab world could be inspired by Tunisia, where violent protests forced president Zine Al Abidine Ben Ali to abandon his post.
“The talk about the spread of what happened in Tunisia to other countries is nonsense. Each society has its own circumstances,” Abul Gheit told reporters in Sharm El Sheikh.
“If the Tunisian people decide to take that approach, it’s their business.
“Egypt has said that the Tunisian people’s will is what counts,” said the foreign minister.
“Those who imagine things and seek to escalate the situation will not achieve their goals.
“The most important thing is the will of the Tunisian people. Nobody is resisting it,” Abul Gheit added..
It is most important for dictators to resist the will of the people – yet even Pharaohs may fall when the people no longer tolerate their cruelty and corruption.
WikiLeaks today condemned calls from the chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security to “strangle the viability” of WikiLeaks by placing the publisher and its editor-in-chief, Julian Assange, on a US “enemies list” normally reserved for terrorists and dictators.
Placement on the US “Specially Designated National and Blocked Persons List” would criminalize US companies who deal with WikiLeaks or its editor. “The U.S. government simply cannot continue its ineffective piecemeal approach of responding in the aftermath of Wikileaks’ damage,” King wrote in a letter to the Secretary of the US Treasury, Geithner. “The U.S. government should be making every effort to strangle the viability of Assange’s organization.”
’The Homeland Security Committee chair Peter T. King wants to put a Cuban style trade embargo around the truth—forced on US citizens at the point of a gun,’ said Julian Assange.
’WikiLeaks is a publishing organization. It is time to cut through the bluster. There is no allegation by the US government or any other party, that WikiLeaks has hurt anyone, at any time during its four-year publishing history, as a result of anything it has published. Very few news organizations can say as much.’
’WikiLeaks has “terrorized” politicians from Kenya to Kansas over the last four years. Quite a few have lost office as a result. That doesn’t mean we are “terrorists”—it means we doing our job. We intend to “terrorize” Peter King, Hillary Clinton, corrupt CEOs and all the rest for many years to come, because that is what the people of the world demand.’
King noted that some U.S. companies had voluntarily cut off ties to Wikileaks, but that a New York publisher had recently agreed to pay Assange for an autobiography. Assange has said the eventual book royalties would help ’keep Wikileaks afloat’.
’By targeting WikiLeaks and the US publisher Knopf for economic censorship, King reveals his abiding hatred for the US constitution. When the founding fathers wrote, “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”, they did not provide an exception for blustering fools like Peter T. King.’
With its credibility seriously eroded by Wikileaks, the US government is digging its hole deeper with Department of Justice subpoenas of the private DM messages of Wikileaks supporters.
Birgitta Jonsdottir, an MP for the Movement in Iceland, said last night on Twitter that the “USA government wants to know about all my tweets and more since november 1st 2009. Do they realize I am a member of parliament in Iceland?”
She said she was starting a legal fight to stop the US getting hold of her messages, after being told by Twitter that a subpoena had been issued. She wrote: “department of justice are requesting twitter to provide the info – I got 10 days to stop it via legal process before twitter hands it over.”
She said the justice department was “just sending a message and of course they are asking for a lot more than just my tweets.”
Jonsdottir said she was demanding a meeting with the US ambassador to Iceland. “The justice department has gone completely over the top.” She added that the US authorities had requested personal information from Twitter as well as her private messages and that she was now assessing her legal position.
“It’s not just about my information. It’s a warning for anyone who had anything to do with WikiLeaks. It is completely unacceptable for the US justice department to flex its muscles like this. I am lucky, I’m a representative in parliament. But what of other people? It’s my duty to do whatever I can to stop this abuse.”
Twitter would not comment on the case. In a statement, the company said: “We’re not going to comment on specific requests, but, to help users protect their rights, it’s our policy to notify users about law enforcement and governmental requests for their information, unless we are prevented by law from doing so.”
Most of Twitter’s messages are public, but users can also send private messages on the service.
Marc Rotenberg, president of the online watchdog the Electronic Privacy Information Centre (EPIC) in Washington, said it appeared the US justice department was looking at building a case against WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, over its publication of secret US documents.
EPIC has already requested that the US authorities hand over information about their investigations into people who have donated to WikiLeaks via Mastercard, Visa or PayPal.
“The government has the right to get information, but that has to be done in a lawful way. Is there a lawful prosecution that could be brought against WikiLeaks? It seems unlikely to me. But it’s a huge question here in the US,” said Rotenberg.
Suffice to say, this is a serious escalation of the DOJ’s efforts to probe, harass and intimidate anyone having to do with WikiLeaks. Previously, Appelbaum as well as Bradley Manning supporter David House — both American citizens — had their laptops and other electronic equipment seized at the border by Homeland Security agents when attempting to re-enter the U.S.
The US government contortions increasingly remind me of those of Bjelke Petersen’s Queensland police state when faced with the Fitzgerald Inquiry. This inquiry was mentioned by Julian Assange in his “Jerilderie letter” published in The Australian the night before his incarceration. In the absence of a Royal Commission and the unwillingness of the superpower to incorporate and submit to international law however, we have Wikileaks, which in one sense is a form of open jurisdiction.
UPDATE
@rixstepnews Send all your secret Twitter stuff to tracy.mccormick@usdoj.gov or fax it to +1 703-299-3981 #Assange #subpoena #WikiLeaks #
@rixstepnews Everybody collect their tweets and DMs and email them to tracy.mccormick@usdoj.gov. Send at least two copies. #Assange #subpoena #WikiLeaks #
@ioerror It seems quite wrong that I feel safe in Iceland while simultaneously having a sense of apprehension about returning to the USA next week. #
@wikileaks Note that we can assume Google & Facebook also have secret US government subpeonas. They make no comment. Did they fold? #
@ioerror Now’s a good time to note that *the world* needs strong anonymity. Help out: https://www.torproject.org/getinvolved/volunteer.html.en #
@ioerror I wonder if the subpoena is merely a front to legally introduce evidence captured by the confirmed NSA wiretaps two blocks from Twitter HQ? #
@Jinjirrie RT @TheJusticeDept January is National Stalking Awareness Month. http://is.gd/klycZ #irony #wikileaks #
@Colvinius Does this mean you? “@spyblog Subpoena demands usernames & IP addresses of all 634.892 current Followers of the “wikileaks” Twitter account” #
UPDATE 2 (recording my tweets for the stalking DOJ’s convenience since the ‘DOJ does not collect comments or messages through this account.’)
@Jinjirrie Hey @TheJusticeDept if you want to know about me, follow me, you might learn something about justice3 #
@Jinjirrie Instead of harassing & repressing Wikileaks & hr activists, US govt shd end its crimes against humanity & prosecute its torturing criminals #
@Jinjirrie The more the US govt attempts to suppress the truth about its crimes & protects its torturing crims, the less its credibility #
@Jinjirrie The less the US govt’s credibility, the less people will choose to holiday there, invest there, or have anything to do with it. #
@Jinjirrie Tourism is of course, the second biggest US export earner after defence. The US govt’s behaviour is thus inimical to its peoples’ welfare. #
@Jinjirrie The US debt is now $14t – the US needs every export dollar it can manage, the chinese aren’t happy about US printing more money #
@Jinjirrie China and Russia have already moved to trading bilaterally in their own currencies #
@Jinjirrie The devaluation of the USD due to the Fed printing more money devalues Chinese investments in the US – there are consequences, US #
@Jinjirrie What happens when the world tires of carrying the US, which has attained its wealth from global exploitation? #
The irony remains, however, that it is the intolerant Americans, Europeans, and the Israelis and their extremist intolerant, though at times unwitting, local allies, namely the violent minority of sectarians among Islamists, who stand to benefit most from the Alexandria tragedy. Unless intellectuals in Egypt and the Arab world, Muslim and Christian, religious and secular, resist joining this international alliance of the intolerant, they may very well help them achieve their goals.
Like it or not, the fact is that the rabbis simply put into clear words the anti-democratic implications of the term “Jewish State”. It is the privileges of Israel’s Jewish citizens and the policy of progressively marginalizing the Arabs that are the source of racism. The rabbis are outspoken about it, the Knesset and government prefer a more subtle approach. In order for Israel to be a Jewish State in the moral sense, that is, do not unto Arabs what is hated by Jews, it must be democratic. Democracy is the institutional manifestation of the Jewish doctrine that we are all created in His image.
Last month, Swedish Radio, Medierna, uncovered the fact that Johannes Wahlström, son of Israel Shamir, ‘is the gatekeeper of the cables in Scandinavia, and “has the power to decide” which newspapers are provided access and what leaks they are allowed to see.’
In the light of this, it is peculiar that Aftenposten editor, Hilde Haugsgjerd, won’t own up as to where her paper obtained the documents. It would be welcome if Wikileaks could clarify, particularly since Hilde is claiming that Assange is “angry” about Aftenposten’s access.
The editor of Oslo-based newspaper Aftenposten was fending off reaction Tuesday to a commentary she wrote on her paper’s access to all of the more than 250,000 diplomatic cables initially leaked to the non-profit organization WikiLeaks. She had called it a “paradox” that WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange reportedly is angry that Aftenposten now can report freely from the leaked cables.
Aftenposten’s editor-in-chief, Hilde Haugsgjerd, elaborated on her media company’s access to the WikiLeaks documents.
“Paradoxically enough, the chief of one of our times’ biggest leaks is angry because there was a leak from his own leak,” editor-in-chief Hilde Haugsgjerd wrote in her commentary in Monday’s edition of Aftenposten. She wrote that Aftenposten’s own access to the cables, with no strings attached, “destroyed Assange’s own strategy for when and how documents about international conficts and themes should be made public.”
WikiLeaks, Haugsgjerd claimed, had a media plan to “secure themselves the best possible coverage and contribute to the most international debate possible around the leak’s content.” Aftenposten, she noted is not adhering to WikiLeaks’ plan, which she referred to as a “news monopoly” that involved a consortium of international media outlets.
“We have not signed the confidentiality clause that hinders (the media outlets) from publishing stories without an explicit agreement with WikiLeaks,” Haugsgjerd wrote.
That sparked a reaction from journalists at The Guardian in the UK, which has been among the media outlets that secured access to the cables from WikiLeaks. Nick Davies of The Guardian’s editorial staff told the web site for Norway’s journalists’ union, Journalisten, that Assange has had “zero influence” on The Guardian’s editorial decisions regarding its use of the WikiLeaks cables.
The Guardian also scotched Aftenposten’s boast about having exclusive access to all the documents.
Davies claimed that the agreement signed between The Guardian and WikiLeaks determined, in fact, that Assange would not have any influence, and he has not.
David Leigh, another editor at The Guardian, told Journalisten on Tuesday that his paper has all the cables as do the other newspapers in the original agreement with WikiLeaks. Leigh told Journalisten that the papers themselves have decided what they will publish, and when. After writing their stories, he said, edited copies of the relevant cables are sent to WikiLeaks (with some identities deleted, for example, for security reasons) so that WikiLeaks can publish the documents at the same time.
Amongst other striking releases, Aftenposten has published cables relating to German commercial spy satellite development.
12.2.2009: GERMANY SEEKS U.S. PARTNER TO DEVELOP OPTICAL SPACE IMAGERY CAPABILITIES – “Eckardt said that DLR explored various scenarios for international partnerships, but in the end came to the conclusion that a U.S. partnership (DG) made the most “business sense.” “Should DLRs partnership with DG materialize, DLR indicated that the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) would be the “prime customer identified”, with DG serving as the U.S. market entry point.” 15.2.2009: GERMANY EXPANDING OVERHEAD RECONNAISSANCE PROGRAMS AND EYE CLOSER USG PARTNERSHIP –
“(S//NF) On 8 April 2009, US National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) officers met with German Intelligence Service (BND) officials to discuss Germanys plans for expanded nationally operated overhead reconnaissance resources.”
This cable above is weird because the contents refers to a meeting in April, 09 whereas the cable is dated 15th Feb 09. The date for removal of embargo is 05/14/2034 … so the cable may really be dated 05/14/09.
Neither Wikileaks commander or his spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson have so far wanted to comment on his relationship to Aftenposten. The newspaper claims to have gotten all the so-called “Cable Street” – over 250,000 diplomatic documents – without having to enter into any agreement with Wikileaks. . It has, however, the site’s so-called media partners – reject as El País, The Guardian and Le Monde – concluded.
COLD FEET? Even though the temperature was around freezing, went Assange in the base stone. DN is not aware whether it was a conscious choice or a consequence of bad times.
- Aftenposten is currently a media partner of Wikileaks, says Julian Assange to DN before reporting to the police.
- However, Aftenposten said that it is not it?
- Events are treated as other media partners.
- It’s amazing to hear him say it. We are not a media partner of Wikileaks, says chief editor of Aftenposten Hilde Haugsgjerd.
“Lite content”
December, it is not known whether the leak of Wikileaks documents to Aftenposten has happened alerts directly from the site, from one of its media partners or others with access to the material.
Commenting on Monday wrote Hilde Haugsgjerd that Wikileaks “after what we know, to say the least [is] unhappy with the newspaper Aftenposten also has received the so-called” Cable Street “with 251 287 U.S. diplomatic documents from a source” . Haugsgjerd stressed that “the Aftenposten is not included in the Assange refers to as the consortium, the few international editors who from the start was invited to participate in the publication of all documents,” and that the newspaper is free to publish cases from the documents without having to deal with Wikileaks.
- I can not comment. I have not read the comment, “said Assange.
Assange would not say anything more about the relationship to Aftenposten – a relationship which, however, has become more and more inflamed in the past two weeks. The reason for Haugsgjerd comment will be telephone calls between journalists in Aftenposten and Wikileaks few days before Christmas. In the calls attempted and Julian Assange spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson to conduct negotiations to bring Aftenposten publication of documents in controlled circumstances.
Would negotiate
- I know Assange have had contact with a few reporters with us. I do not know the details of these conversations, except that he has expressed a desire that we should be included as one of Wikileaks’ media partners. He has also expressed a desire to talk to me, but I have not heard from him, “said Hilde Haugsgjerd.
She denied that anyone in Aftenposten has entered into any agreement with Assange, and stressing that the newspaper is free to use the Wikileaks material.
- Since he has not spoken with either me or the other of the Aftenposten editors, it goes without saying that the newspaper has not entered into any agreement with him.
- Assange claims the now, however, that you are a media partner. What do you think about it?
- It seems as if Assange wish and believe that we will be media partners. Men at han ønsker og mener det, betyr jo ikke at vi er en mediepartner. But he wants and believes it, does not mean that we are a media partner.
- So what are you then?
- We have not had access to this material from Wikileaks. And I know that we have gained access to the material without having entered into any agreement on use. We are now keen to use the material in a responsible manner, “said Haugsgjerd.
Newspapers gossip
The agreements between Wikileaks and media partners have never been made public, and the details in them are not known.. But Julian Assange said himself to The Guardian, 3 December that part of the agreement is that the media partners will review and contribute to sladding of the documents that the papers reviews before they are published on the Wikileaks website. . In this way, Wikileaks escaped much of it is very time consuming skidding work. It has been known that the agreement also contained a release date for when the first cases could be released.
After the DN understand the Evening Post’s journalists have refused to acquiesce to the demands of Assange. They showed that the Event has been given access to the documents without any prior agreement.
Aftenposten has the last three weeks published cases each day from the disputed documents, but Wikileaks has little posted the documents referred to Aftenposten, the site makes such alerts when the other media partners publish cases based on diplomatic documents
Here’s one of my historical bookmarks – the manipulation into war, again, of Iraq by the US and cronies for Gulf War 1 aka Desert Storm. In honour of the validation of my long-held stance, I’ll copy the cable in full.
Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin
90BAGHDAD4237 1990-07-25 12:12 2011-01-01 21:09 SECRET Embassy Baghdad
O 251246Z JUL 90
FM AMEMBASSY BAGHDAD
TO SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 4627
INFO AMEMBASSY ABU DHABI IMMEDIATE
AMEMBASSY CAIRO IMMEDIATE
AMEMBASSY KUWAIT IMMEDIATE
AMEMBASSY RIYADH IMMEDIATE
ARABLEAGUE COLLECTIVE
S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 05 BAGHDAD 04237
E.O. 12356: DECL:OADR
TAGS: MOPS PREL US KU IZ
SUBJECT: SADDAM’S MESSAGE OF FRIENDSHIP TO PRESIDENT BUSH
¶1. SECRET – ENTIRE TEXT.
¶2. SUMMARY: SADDAM TOLD THE AMBASSADOR JULY 25
THAT MUBARAK HAS ARRANGED FOR KUWAITI AND IRAQI
DELEGATIONS TO MEET IN RIYADH, AND THEN ON
JULY 28, 29 OR 30, THE KUWAITI CROWN PRINCE WILL
COME TO BAGHDAD FOR SERIOUS NEGOTIATIONS. “NOTHING
WILL HAPPEN” BEFORE THEN, SADDAM HAD PROMISED
MUBARAK.
–SADDAM WISHED TO CONVEY AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO
PRESIDENT BUSH: IRAQ WANTS FRIENDSHIP, BUT DOES
THE USG? IRAQ SUFFERED 100,000′S OF CASUALTIES
AND IS NOW SO POOR THAT WAR ORPHAN PENSIONS WILL
SOON BE CUT; YET RICH KUWAIT WILL NOT EVEN ACCEPT
OPEC DISCIPLINE. IRAQ IS SICK OF WAR, BUT KUWAIT
HAS IGNORED DIPLOMACY. USG MANEUVERS WITH THE UAE
WILL ENCOURAGE THE UAE AND KUWAIT TO IGNORE
CONVENTIONAL DIPLOMACY. IF IRAQ IS PUBLICLY
HUMILIATED BY THE USG, IT WILL HAVE NO CHOICE
BUT TO “RESPOND,” HOWEVER ILLOGICAL AND SELF
DESTRUCTIVE THAT WOULD PROVE.
–ALTHOUGH NOT QUITE EXPLICIT, SADDAM’S MESSAGE
TO US SEEMED TO BE THAT HE WILL MAKE A MAJOR PUSH
TO COOPERATE WITH MUBARAK’S DIPLOMACY, BUT WE MUST
TRY TO UNDERSTAND KUWAITI/UAE “SELFISHNESS” IS
UNBEARABLE. AMBASSADOR MADE CLEAR THAT WE CAN
NEVER EXCUSE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES BY OTHER THAN
PEACEFUL MEANS. END SUMMARY.
¶3. AMBASSADOR WAS SUMMONED BY PRESIDENT
SADDAM HUSAYN AT NOON JULY 25. ALSO PRESENT
WERE FONMIN AZIZ, THE PRESIDENT’S OFFICE
DIRECTOR, TWO NOTETAKERS, AND THE IRAQI
INTERPRETER.
¶4. SADDAM, WHOSE MANNER WAS CORDIAL,
REASONABLE AND EVEN WARM THROUGHOUT THE ENSUING
TWO HOURS, SAID HE WISHED THE AMBASSADOR TO
CONVEY A MESSAGE TO PRESIDENT BUSH. SADDAM
THEN RECALLED IN DETAIL THE HISTORY OF IRAQ’S
DECISION TO REESTABLISH DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS
AND ITS POSTPONING IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT
DECISION AT THE BEGINNING OF THE WAR, RATHER THAN BE
THOUGHT WEAK AND NEEDY. HE THEN SPOKE ABOUT THE
MANY “BLOWS” OUR RELATIONS HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO
SINCE 1984, CHIEF AMONG THEM IRANGATE. IT WAS
AFTER THE FAW VICTORY, SADDAM SAID, THAT IRAQI
MISAPPREHENSIONS ABOUT USG PURPOSES BEGAN TO
SURFACE AGAIN, I.E., SUSPICIONS THAT THE U.S. WAS
NOT HAPPY TO SEE THE WAR END.
¶5. PICKING HIS WORDS WITH CARE, SADDAM SAID
THAT THERE ARE “SOME CIRCLES” IN THE USG,
INCLUDING IN CIA AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT,
BUT EMPHATICALLY EXCLUDING THE PRESIDENT AND
SECRETARY BAKER, WHO ARE NOT FRIENDLY TOWARD
IRAQ-U.S. RELATIONS. HE THEN LISTED WHAT HE
SEEMED TO REGARD AS FACTS TO SUPPORT THIS
CONCLUSION: “SOME CIRCLES ARE GATHERING
INFORMATION ON WHO MIGHT BE SADDAM HUSAYN’S
SUCCESSOR;” THEY KEPT UP CONTACTS IN THE GULF
WARNING AGAINST IRAQ; THEY WORKED TO ENSURE
NO HELP WOULD GO TO IRAQ (READ EXIM AND CCC).
¶6. IRAQ, THE PRESIDENT STRESSED, IS IN SERIOUS
FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES, WITH 40 BILLION USD DEBTS.
IRAQ, WHOSE VICTORY IN THE WAR AGAINST IRAN
MADE AN HISTORIC DIFFERENCE TO THE ARAB WORLD
AND THE WEST, NEEDS A MARSHALL PLAN. BUT “YOU
WANT THE OIL PRICE DOWN,” SADDAM CHARGED.
¶7. RESUMING HIS LIST OF GRIEVANCES WHICH HE
BELIEVED WERE ALL INSPIRED BY
“SOME CIRCLES” IN THE USG, HE RECALLED THE
“USIA CAMPAIGN” AGAINST HIMSELF, AND THE
GENERAL MEDIA ASSAULT ON IRAQ AND ITS PRESIDENT.
¶8. DESPITE ALL THESE BLOWS, SADDAM SAID, AND
ALTHOUGH “WE WERE SOMEWHAT ANNOYED,” WE STILL
HOPED THAT WE COULD DEVELOP A GOOD RELATIONSHIP.
BUT THOSE WHO FORCE OIL PRICES DOWN ARE ENGAGING
IN ECONOMIC WARFARE AND IRAQ CANNOT ACCEPT SUCH
A TRESPASS ON ITS DIGNITY AND PROSPERITY.
¶9. THE SPEARHEADS (FOR THE USG) HAVE BEEN KUWAIT
AND THE UAE, SADDAM SAID. SADDAM SAID CAREFULLY
THAT JUST AS IRAQ WILL NOT THREATEN OTHERS, IT
WILL ACCEPT NO THREAT AGAINST ITSELF. “WE HOPE
THE USG WILL NOT MISUNDERSTAND:” IRAQ ACCEPTS,
AS THE STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN SAID, THAT ANY
COUNTRY MAY CHOOSE ITS FRIENDS. BUT THE USG KNOWS
THAT IT WAS IRAQ, NOT THE USG, WHICH DECISIVELY
PROTECTED THOSE USG FRIENDS DURING THE WAR–AND THAT
IS UNDERSTANDABLE SINCE PUBLIC OPINION IN THE USG,
TO SAY NOTHING OF GEOGRAPHY, WOULD HAVE MADE IT
IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE AMERICANS TO ACCEPT 10,000 DEAD
IN A SINGLE BATTLE, AS IRAQ DID.
¶10. SADDAM ASKED WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THE USG
TO ANNOUNCE IT IS COMMITTED TO THE DEFENSE OF
ITS FRIENDS, INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY.
ANSWERING HIS OWN QUESTION, HE SAID THAT TO IRAQ
IT MEANS FLAGRANT BIAS AGAINST THE GOI.
¶11. COMING TO ONE OF HIS MAIN POINTS, SADDAM
ARGUED THAT USG MANEUVERS WITH THE UAE AND KUWAIT (SIC)
ENCOURAGED THEM IN THEIR UNGENEROUS POLICIES. THE
IRAQI RIGHTS, SADDAM EMPHASIZED, WILL BE RESTORED
ONE BY ONE, THOUGH IT MAY TAKE A MONTH OR MUCH
MORE THAN A YEAR. IRAQ HOPES THE USG WILL BE
IN HARMONY WITH ALL THE PARTIES TO THIS DISPUTE.
¶12. SADDAM SAID HE UNDERSTANDS THAT THE USG IS
DETERMINED TO KEEP THE OIL FLOWING AND TO
MAINTAIN ITS FRIENDSHIPS IN THE GULF. WHAT HE
CANNOT UNDERSTAND IS WHY WE ENCOURAGE THOSE WHO
ARE DAMAGING IRAQ, WHICH IS WHAT OUR GULF MANEUVERS
WILL DO.
¶13. SADDAM SAID HE FULLY BELIEVES THE USG WANTS
PEACE, AND THAT IS GOOD. BUT DO NOT, HE ASKED,
USE METHODS WHICH YOU SAY YOU DO NOT LIKE,
METHODS LIKE ARM-TWISTING-
¶14. AT THIS POINT SADDAM SPOKE AT LENGTH ABOUT
PRIDE OF IRAQIS, WHO BELIEVE IN “LIBERTY OR DEATH.”
IRAQ WILL HAVE TO RESPOND IF THE U.S. USES THESE
METHODS. IRAQ KNOWS THE USG CAN SEND PLANES AND
ROCKETS AND HURT IRAQ DEEPLY. SADDAM ASKS THAT
THE USG NOT FORCE IRAQ TO THE POINT OF HUMILIATION
AT WHICH LOGIC MUST BE DISREGARDED. IRAQ DOES NOT
CONSIDER THE U.S. AN ENEMY AND HAS TRIED TO BE
FRIENDS.
¶15. AS FOR THE INTRA-ARAB DISPUTES, SADDAM SAID
HE IS NOT ASKING THE USG TO TAKE UP ANY PARTICULAR
ROLE SINCE THE SOLUTIONS MUST COME THROUGH ARAB
AND BILATERAL DIPLOMACY.
¶16. RETURNING TO HIS THEME THAT IRAQ WANTS
DIGNITY AND FREEDOM AS WELL AS FRIENDSHIP WITH THE
U.S., HE CHARGED THAT IN THE LAST YEAR THERE WERE
MANY OFFICIAL STATEMENTS WHICH MADE IT SEEM THAT
THE U.S. DOES NOT WANT TO RECIPROCATE. HOW, FOR
EXAMPLE, SADDAM ASKED,CAN WE INTERPRET THE
INVITATION FOR ARENS TO VISIT AT A TIME OF CRISIS
IN THE GULF? WHY DID THE U.S- DEFENSE MINISTER
MAKE “INFLAMMATORY” STATEMENTS?
¶17. SADDAM SAID THAT THE IRAQIS KNOW WHAT
WAR IS, WANT NO MORE OF IT–”DO NOT PUSH US TO IT;
DO NOT MAKE IT THE ONLY OPTION LEFT WITH WHICH WE
CAN PROTECT OUR DIGNITY.”
¶18. PRESIDENT BUSH, SADDAM SAID, HAS MADE NO MISTAKE
IN HIS PRESIDENCY VIS-A-VIS THE ARABS. THE DECISION
ON THE PLO DIALOGUE WAS “MISTAKEN,” BUT IT WAS
TAKEN UNDER “ZIONIST PRESSURE” AND, SADDAM SAID, IS
PERHAPS A CLEVER TACTIC TO ABSORB THAT PRESSURE.
¶19. AFTER A SHORT DIVERSION ON THE NEED FOR THE
U.S. TO CONSIDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF 200,000
ARABS WITH THE SAME VIGOR AND INTEREST AS THE HUMAN
RIGHTS OF THE ISRAELIS, SADDAM CONCLUDED BY
RESTATING THAT IRAQ WANTS AMERICAN FRIENDSHIP
“ALTHOUGH WE WILL NOT PANT FOR IT, WE WILL DO OUR
PART AS FRIENDS.”
¶20. SADDAM THEN OFFERED AN ANECDOTE TO ILLUSTRATE
HIS POINT. HE HAD TOLD THE IRAQI KURDISH LEADER
IN 1974 THAT HE WAS PREPARED TO GIVE UP HALF OF
THE SHATT AL-ARAB TO IRAN TO OBTAIN ALL OF A
PROSPEROUS IRAQ. THE KURD HAD BET THAT SADDAM WOULD
NOT GIVE HALF THE SHATT–THE KURD WAS WRONG. EVEN
NOW, THE ONLY REAL ISSUE WITH IRAN IS THE SHATT, AND
IF GIVING AWAY HALF OF THE WATERWAY IS THE ONLY
THING STANDING BETWEEN THE CURRENT SITUATION AND
IRAQI PROSPERITY, SADDAM SAID HE WOULD BE GUIDED
BY WHAT HE DID IN 1974.
¶21. THE AMBASSADOR THANKED SADDAM FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS DIRECTLY WITH HIM SOME OF
HIS AND OUR CONCERNS. PRESIDENT BUSH, TOO, WANTS
FRIENDSHIP, AS HE HAD WRITTEN AT THE ‘ID AND ON
THE OCCASION OF IRAQ’S NATIONAL DAY. SADDAM
INTERRUPTED TO SAY HE HAD BEEN TOUCHED BY THOSE
¶22. AMBASSADOR RESUMED HER THEME, RECALLING THAT
THE PRESIDENT HAD INSTRUCTED HER TO BROADEN AND
DEEPEN OUR RELATIONS WITH IRAQ. SADDAM HAD REFERRED
TO “SOME CIRCLES” ANTIPATHETIC TO THAT AIM. SUCH
CIRCLES CERTAINLY EXISTED, BUT THE U.S. ADMINISTRATION
IS INSTRUCTED BY THE PRESIDENT. ON THE OTHER HAND,
THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT CONTROL THE AMERICAN PRESS;
IF HE DID, CRITICISM OF THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD NOT
EXIST. SADDAM AGAIN INTERRUPTED TO SAY HE UNDERSTOOD
THAT. THE AMBASSADOR SAID SHE HAD SEEN THE DIANE
SAWYER SHOW AND THOUGHT THAT IT WAS CHEP AND UNFAIR.
BUT THE AMERICAN PRESS TREATS ALL POLITICIANS
WITHOUT KID GLOVES–THAT IS OUR WAY.
¶23. WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS
VERY RECENTLY REAFFIRMED HIS DESIRE FOR A BETTER
RELATIONSHIP AND HAS PROVEN THAT BY, FOR EXAMPLE,
OPPOSING SANCTIONS BILLS. HERE SADDAM INTERRUPTED
AGAIN. LAUGHING, HE SAID THERE IS NOTHING LEFT
FOR IRAQ TO BUY IN THE U.S. EVERYTHING IS
PROHIBITED EXCEPT FOR WHEAT, AND NO DOUBT THAT WILL
SOON BE DECLARED A DUAL-USE ITEM- SADDAM SAID, HOWEVER,
HE HAD DECIDED NOT TO RAISE THIS ISSUE, BUT RATHER
CONCENTRATE ON THE FAR MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES AT HAND.
¶24. AMBASSADOR SAID THERE WERE MANY ISSUES HE
HAD RAISED SHE WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON, BUT
SHE WISHED TO USE HER LIMITED TIME WITH THE
PRESIDENT TO STRESS FIRST PRESIDENT BUSH’S DESIRE
FOR FRIENDSHIP AND, SECOND, HIS STRONG DESIRE, SHARED
WE ASSUME BY IRAQ, FOR PEACE AND STABILITY IN THE MID
EAST. IS IT NOT REASONABLE FOR US TO BE CONCERNED
WHEN THE PRESIDENT AND THE FOREIGN MINISTER BOTH
SAY PUBLICLY THAT KUWAITI ACTIONS ARE THE
EQUIVALENT OF MILITARY AGGRESSION, AND THEN WE
LEARN THAT MANY UNITS OF THE REPUBLICAN GUARD
HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE BORDER? IS IT NOT REASONABLE
FOR US TO ASK, IN THE SPIRIT OF FRIENDSHIP, NOT
CONFRONTATION, THE SIMPLE QUESTION: WHAT ARE YOUR
INTENTIONS?
¶25. SADDAM SAID THAT WAS INDEED A REASONABLE
QUESTION. HE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT WE SHOULD BE
CONCERNED FOR REGIONAL PEACE, IN FACT IT IS OUR
DUTY AS A SUPERPOWER. “BUT HOW CAN WE MAKE THEM
(KUWAIT AND UAE) UNDERSTAND HOW DEEPLY WE ARE
SUFFERING.” THE FINANCIAL SITUATION IS SUCH THAT
THE PENSIONS FOR WIDOWS AND ORPHANS WILL HAVE
TO BE CUT. AT THIS POINT, THE INTERPRETER AND
ONE OF THE NOTETAKERS BROKE DOWN AND WEPT.
¶26. AFTER A PAUSE FOR RECUPERATION, SADDAM SAID,
IN EFFECT, BELIEVE ME I HAVE TRIED EVERYTHING: WE
SENT ENVOYS, WROTE MESSAGES, ASKED FAHD TO
ARRANGE QUADRAPARTITE SUMMIT (IRAQ, SAG, UE,
KUWAIT). FAHD SUGGESTFD OIL MINISTERS INSTEAD AND
WE AGREED TO THE JEDDAH AGREEMENT ALTHOUGH IT WAS
WELL BELOW OUR HOPES. THEN, SADDAM CONTINUED,
TWO DAYS LATER THE KUWAITI OIL MINISTER ANNOUNCED
HE WOULD WANT TO ANNUL THAT AGREEMENT WITHIN TWO
MONTHS. AS FOR THE UAE, SADDAM SAID, I BEGGED
SHAYKH ZAYID TO UNDERSTAND OUR PROBLEMS (WHEN
SADDAM ENTERTAINED HIM IN MOSUL AFTER THE BAGHDAD
SUMMIT), AND ZAYID SAID JUST WAIT UNTIL I GET
BACK TO ABU DHABI. BUT THEN HIS MINISTER OF OIL
MADE “BAD STATEMENTS.”
¶27. AT THIS POINT, SADDAM LEFT THE ROOM TO TAKE
AN URGENT CALL FROM MUBARAK. AFTER HIS RETURN,
THE AMBASSADOR ASKED IF HE COULD TELL HER IF
THERE HAS ANY PROGRESS IN FINDING A PEACEFUL WAY
TO DEFUSE THE DISPUTE. THIS WAS SOMETHING PRESIDENT
BUSH WOULD BE KEENLY INTERESTED TO KNOW. SADDAM
SAID THAT HE HAD JUST LEARNED FROM MUBARAK THE
KUWAITIS HAVE AGREED TO NEGOTIATE. THE KUWAITI
CROWN PRINCE/PRIME MINISTER WOULD MEET IN RIYADH
WITH SADDAM’S NUMBER TWO, IZZAT IBRAHIM, AND THEN
THE KUWAITI WOULD COME TO BAGHDAD ON SATURDAY,
SUNDAY OR, AT THE LATEST, MONDAY, JULY 30.
¶28. “I TOLD MUBARAK,” SADDAM SAID, THAT “NOTHING
WILL HAPPEN UNTIL THE MEETING,” AND NOTHING WILL
HAPPEN DURING OR AFTER THE MEETING IF THE KUWAITIS
WILL AT LAST “GIVE US SOME HOPE.”
¶29. THE AMBASSADOR SAID SHE WAS DELIGHTED TO HEAR
THIS GOOD NEWS. SADDAM THEN ASKED HER TO CONVEY
HIS WARM GREETINGS TO PRESIDENT BUSH AND TO
CONVEY HIS MESSAGE TO HIM.
¶30. NOTE: ON THE BORDER QUESTION, SADDAM REFERRED
TO THE 1961 AGREEMENT AND A “LINE OF PATROL” IT
HAD ESTABLISHED. THE KUWAITIS, HE SAID, HAD TOLD
MUBARAK IRAQ WAS 20 KILOMETERS “IN FRONT” OF THIS
LINE. THE AMBASSADOR SAID THAT SHE HAD SERVED IN
KUWAIT 20 YEARS BEFORE; THEN, AS NOW, WE TOOK NO
POSITION ON THESE ARAB AFFAIRS.
¶31. COMMENT: IN THE MEMORY QF THE CURRENT
DIPLOMATIC CORPS, SADDAM HAS NEVER SUMMONED AN
AMBASSADOR. HE IS WORRIED.
ACCORDING TO HIS OWN POLITICAL THEORIZING
(U.S. THE SOLE MAJOR POWER IN THE MIDDLE EAST),
HE NEEDS AT A MINIMUM A CORRECT RELATIONSHIP
WITH US FOR OBVIOUS GEOPOLITICAL REASONS,
ESPECIALLY AS LONG AS HE PERCEIVES MORTAL
THREATS FROM ISRAEL AND IRAN. AMBASSADOR
BELIEVES SADDAM SUSPECTS OUR DECISION SUDDENLY
TO UNDERTAKE MANEUVERS WITH ABU DHABI IS A
HARBINGER OF A USG DECISION TO TAKE SIDES.
FURTHER, SADDAM, HIMSELF BEGINNING TO HAVE AN
INKLING OF HOW MUCH HE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT
THE U.S., IS APPREHENSIVE THAT WE DO NOT
UNDERSTAND CERTAIN POLITICAL FACTORS WHICH
INHIBIT HIM, SUCH AS:
–HE CANNOT ALLOW HIMSELF TO BE PERCEIVED AS
CAVING IN TO SUPERPOWER BULLYING (AS U/S HAMDUN
FRANKLY WARNED US IN LATE 1988);
–IRAQ, WHICH LOST 100,000′S OF CASUALTIES, IS
SUFFERING AND KUWAIT IS “MISERLY” AND “SELFISH.”
¶32. IT WAS PROGRESS TO HAVE SADDAM ADMIT
THAT THE USG HAS A “RESPONSIBILITY” IN THE
REGION, AND HAS EVERY RIGHT TO EXPECT AN
ANSWER WHEN WE ASK IRAQ’S INTENTIONS. HIS
RESPONSE IN EFFECT THAT HE TRIED VARIOUS
DIPLOMATIC/CHANNELS BEFORE RESORTING TO
UNADULTERATED INTIMIDATION HAS AT LEAST THE
VIRTUE OF FRANKNESS. HIS EMPHASIS THAT HE
WANTS PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT IS SURELY SINCERE
(IRAQIS ARE SICK OF WAR), BUT THE TERMS SOUND
DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE. SADDAM SEEMS TO WANT
PLEDGES NOW ON OIL PRICES AND PRODUCTION TO
COVER THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS.
GLASPIE
What happened in Iraq before Glaspie’s fateful meeting with Saddam? Robert Parry writes:
According to a sworn affidavit by former Reagan national security staffer Howard Teicher, the
administration enlisted the Egyptians in a secret “Bear Spares” program that gave the United States access
to Soviet-designed military equipment. Teicher asserted that the Reagan administration funnelled some of
those weapons to Iraq and also arranged other shipments of devastating cluster bombs that Saddam’s air
force dropped on Iranians troops.
In 1984, facing congressional rejection of continued CIA funding of the Nicaraguan contra rebels, President
Reagan exploited the “special status” again. He tapped into the Saudi slush funds for money to support the
Nicaraguan contra rebels in their war in Central America. The President also authorized secret weapons
shipments to Iran in another arms-for-hostages scheme, with the profits going to “off-the-shelf” intelligence
operations. That gambit, like the others, was protected by walls of “deniability” and outright lies.
Some of those lies collapsed in the Iran-Contra scandal, but the administration quickly constructed new
stonewalls that were never breached. Republicans fiercely defended the secrets and Democrats lacked the
nerve to fight for the truth. The Washington media also lost interest because the scandals were complex
and official sources steered the press in other directions.
‘Read Machiavelli’
When I interviewed Haig several years ago, I asked him if he was troubled by the pattern of deceit that had
become the norm among international players in the 1980s. “Oh, no, no, no, no,” he boomed, shaking his
head. “On that kind of thing? No. Come on. Jesus! God! You know, you’d better get out and read Machiavelli
or somebody else because I think you’re living in a dream world! People do what their national interest tells
them to do and if it means lying to a friendly nation, they’re going to lie through their teeth.”
But sometimes the game-playing did have unintended consequences. In 1990, a decade after Iraq’s messy
invasion of Iran, an embittered Saddam Hussein was looking for pay-back from the sheikhdoms that he felt
had egged him into war. Saddam was especially furious with Kuwait for slant drilling into Iraq’s oil fields
and refusing to extend more credit. Again, Saddam was looking for a signal from the U.S. president, this
time George Bush.
When Saddam explained his confrontation with Kuwait to U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie, he received an
ambiguous reply, a reaction he apparently perceived as another “green light.” Eight days later, Saddam
unleashed his army into Kuwait, an invasion that required 500,000 U.S. troops and thousands more dead to
reverse.
Francis Boyle describes in his 1992 paper the heinous Bush Senior & Co. war crimes during Gulf War 1. He describes the “Green Light” thus:
12. The Defendants showed absolutely no opposition to Iraq’s
increasing threats against Iraq. Indeed, when Saddam
Hussein requested U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie to explain
State Department testimony in Congress about Iraq’s threats
against Kuwait, she assured him that the United States
considered the dispute to be a regional concern, and that it
would not intervene militarily. In other words, the United States
government gave Saddam Hussein what amounted to a
“green light” to invade Kuwait.
13. This reprehensible behavior was similar to that of the
Carter administration during September of 1980, when
United States government officials gave Saddam Hussein the
“green light” to invade Iran and thus commence the tragic
Iraq-Iran War. A decade later, Saddam Hussein simply
surmised that he had been given yet another “green light” by
the United States government to commit overt aggression
against surrounding states. Only this time, the Defendants
knowingly intended to lead Iraq into a provocation that could
be used to justify intervention and warfare by United States
military forces for the real purpose of destroying Iraq as a
military power and seizing Arab oil fields in the Persian Gulf.
9. Sometime after the termination of the Iraq-Iran War in the
Summer of 1988, the Pentagon proceeded to revise its
outstanding war plans for U.S. military intervention into the
Persian Gulf region in order to destroy Iraq. Defendant
Schwarzkopf was put in charge of this revision. For example,
in early 1990, Defendant Schwarzkopf informed the Senate
Armed Services Committee of this new military strategy in the
Gulf allegedly designed to protect U.S. access to and control
over Gulf oil in the event of regional conflicts. In October 1990,
Defendant Powell referred to the new military plan developed
in 1989. After the war, Defendant Schwarzkopf referred to
eighteen months of planning for the campaign.
10. Sometime in late 1989 or early 1990, the Pentagon’s war
plan for destroying Iraq and stealing Persian Gulf oil fields
was put into motion. At that time, Defendant Schwarzkopf was
named the Commander of the so-called U.S. Central
Command – which was the renamed version of the Rapid
Deployment Force – for the purpose of carrying out the war
plan that he had personally developed and supervised. During
January of 1990, massive quantities of United States
weapons, equipment, and supplies were sent to Saudi Arabia
in order to prepare for the war against Iraq.
11. Pursuant to this war plan, Defendant Webster and the CIA
assisted and directed Kuwait in its actions of violating OPEC
oil production agreements to undercut the price of oil for the
purpose of debilitating Iraq’s economy; in extracting
excessive and illegal amounts of oil from pools it shared with
Iraq; in demanding immediate repayment of loans Kuwait had
made to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran War; and in breaking off
negotiations with Iraq over these disputes. The Defendants
intended to provoke Iraq into aggressive military actions
against Kuwait that they knew could be used to justify U.S.
military intervention into the Persian Gulf for the purpose of
destroying Iraq and taking over Arab oil fields.
The U.S. “Green Light” to Invade Kuwait
12. The Defendants showed absolutely no opposition to Iraq’s
increasing threats against Iraq. Indeed, when Saddam
Hussein requested U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie to explain
State Department testimony in Congress about Iraq’s threats
against Kuwait, she assured him that the United States
considered the dispute to be a regional concern, and that it
would not intervene militarily. In other words, the United States
government gave Saddam Hussein what amounted to a
“green light” to invade Kuwait.
13. This reprehensible behavior was similar to that of the
Carter administration during September of 1980, when
United States government officials gave Saddam Hussein the
“green light” to invade Iran and thus commence the tragic
Iraq-Iran War. A decade later, Saddam Hussein simply
surmised that he had been given yet another “green light” by
the United States government to commit overt aggression
against surrounding states. Only this time, the Defendants
knowingly intended to lead Iraq into a provocation that could
be used to justify intervention and warfare by United States
military forces for the real purpose of destroying Iraq as a
military power and seizing Arab oil fields in the Persian Gulf.
Bush Is the Bigger War Criminal
14. On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait
without significant resistance. The Kuwaiti government itself
estimated that approximately 300 people were killed as a
result of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, and a few hundred more as
a result of the military occupation. By comparison, Defendant
Bush’s invasion of Panama in December of 1989 took
between 2,000 and 4,000 Panamanian lives, and the United
States government is still covering up the actual death toll.
Defendant Bush killed more innocent people in Panama than
Saddam Hussein did in Kuwait.
15. Defendant Bush’s invasion of Panama was even more
illegal, reprehensible, and criminal than Saddam Hussein’s
invasion of Kuwait. The world must never forget that the first
step in the construction of Bush’s “New World Order” was his
illegal invasion of Panama and the murder of thousands of
completely innocent Panamanian civilians. America’s
self-anointed policeman in the Persian Gulf had the blood of
the Panamanian People on his hands.
Bush’s Perversion of the Constitution
16. Pursuant to the Pentagon’s war plan for destroying Iraq
and stealing Persian Gulf oil fields – and without consultation
or communication with Congress – Defendant Bush initially
ordered 40,000 U.S. military personnel into the Persian Gulf
region during the first week of August 1990. He lied to the
American People and Congress when he stated that his acts
were purely defensive. Right from the very outset of this crisis
– and even beforehand – Defendant Bush fully intended to go
to war against Iraq and to seize the Arab oil fields in the
Persian Gulf. Defendant Bush deliberately misled, deceived,
concealed and made false representations to the Congress
to prevent its free deliberation and informed exercise of
legislative power.
17. Defendant Bush intentionally usurped Congressional
power, ignored its authority, and failed and refused to consult
with the Congress. He individually ordered a naval blockade
against Iraq – itself an act of war – without approval by
Congress or the U.N. Security Council. Defendant Bush
waited until after the November 1990 elections to publicly
announce his earlier order sending more than 200,000
additional military personnel to the Persian Gulf for offensive
purposes without seeking the approval of Congress. Pursuant
to the Pentagon’s war plan, Defendant Bush switched U.S.
forces from a defensive position and capability to an
offensive capacity for aggression against Iraq without
consultation with, and contrary to assurances given to,
Congress and the American People.
18. On the very eve of the war, Defendant Bush then
strong-armed legislation through Congress that approved
enforcement of U.N. resolutions vesting absolute discretion in
any nation, providing no guidelines, and requiring no reporting
to the United Nations. Defendant Bush knew full well that he
intended to destroy the armed forces and civilian
infrastructure of Iraq. Those acts were undertaken to enable
him to commit a Nuremberg Crime Against Peace and war
crimes. This conduct violated the Constitution and Laws of the
United States and especially the War Powers Clause found in
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the U.S. War Powers
Act of 1973, 87 Stat. 555, and the United Nations Charter,
which is the “Supreme Law of the Land” under Article 6 of the
Constitution. For this reason alone, Defendant Bush and his
co-conspirators committed “High Crimes and
Misdemeanors” that warrant their impeachment, conviction,
removal from office, and criminal prosecution.
On the 2nd August, 1990, Iraq began its onslaught.
O 020411Z AUG 90
FM AMEMBASSY BAGHDAD
TO SECSTATE WASHDC NIACT IMMEDIATE 4708
AMEMBASSY KUWAIT NIACT IMMEDIATE
AMEMBASSY RIYADH IMMEDIATE
AMEMBASSY CAIRO IMMEDIATE
AMEMBASSY DOHA IMMEDIATE
AMEMBASSY ABU DHABI IMMEDIATE
AMEMBASSY MANAMA IMMEDIATE
AMEMBASSY AMMAN IMMEDIATE
AMEMBASSY MUSCAT IMMEDIATE
AMEMBASSY DAMASCUS IMMEDIATE
S E C R E T BAGHDAD 04397
E.O. 12356: DECL:OADR
TAGS: PREL IZ KU AS
SUBJECT: IRAQI INCURSION ACROSS KUWAITI BORDER
REF: (A) STATE 253201 (B) WILSON/MACK
TELECON (C) WILSON/CHARLES TELECON
¶1. (S-ENTIRE TEXT)
¶2. WE HAVE TRIED REPEATEDLY SINCE 0630 LOCAL
TO REACH SENIOR MFA OFFICIALS, INCLUDING
FOREIGN MINISTER AZIZ. UNDERSECRETARY HAMDUN
IS APPARENTLY NOT AT HOME SINCE NOBODY ANSWERS
HIS HOME TELEPHONE NUMBER. THE FOREIGN
MINISTRY DUTY OFFICER IS AWARE OF OUR INTEREST
IN TALKING TO THE MINISTER, AND WE ARE REMIND-
ING THEM EVERY TEN MINUTES. AT 0710 LOCAL WE
WERE TOLD THAT BOTH HAMDUN AND THE FOREIGN
MINISTER WERE IN A MEETING.
¶3. EMBASSY HAS SET UP A CRISIS MANAGEMENT TEAM.
EMBASSY TELEPHONE NUMBERS ARE: 7196138/9,
7189265, 7189267, 7193791, 7189273. SECURITY
LINE IS EXTENSION 286.
¶4. IRAQI PRESS THIS MORNING MAKES NO MENTION
OF INCURSION. IRAQI PRESS COVERAGE OF THE
KUWAIT/IRAQ TALKS ARE CRITICAL OF KUWAIT’S
UNCOMPROMISING POSITION, BUT DO NOT IN ANY
WAY SUGGEST THAT THE GOI IS CONSIDERING THE
MILITARY OPTION.
When the United Nations relaxed its sanctions
regime in 1998 and permitted Iraq to buy spare
parts for its oil fields, it was Halliburton, under
Mr Cheney’s leadership, that cleaned up on the
contract to repair war damage and get
Saddam Hussein’s oil pipes flowing at full
capacity again. Two Halliburton subsidiaries
did business worth almost $24m (£15m) with
the man whom these days Mr Cheney calls a
“murderous dictator” and “the world’s worst
leader”.
Since taking over as George Bush’s
vice-president, Mr Cheney has severed all
formal ties with his former employer, notably
when he cashed in $36m in stock options and
other benefits at the height of the market in
August 2000. But Halliburton – currently
struggling with a corporate accounting scandal
that may or may not implicate Mr Cheney – could profit all over again if the
much-threatened new war against Iraq comes to pass.
Since taking over as George Bush’s
vice-president, Mr Cheney has severed all
formal ties with his former employer, notably
when he cashed in $36m in stock options and
other benefits at the height of the market in
August 2000. But Halliburton – currently
struggling with a corporate accounting scandal
that may or may not implicate Mr Cheney – could profit all over again if the
much-threatened new war against Iraq comes to pass.
We can certainly expect more air strikes against the oil fields, possibly combined
with a ground invasion. Then, when it is all over, someone is going to have to
mop up the damage once again. Halliburton, with its previous experience and
unparalleled political connections (not limited to Mr Cheney), would be in pole
position for the job.
Nobody could justifiably accuse the Bush administration of wanting to wage war
on Iraq solely as a favour to its friends in the oil business and the
military-industrial complex. But many of the companies that stand to gain most
from a war enjoy remarkably close ties to senior figures in the administration.
And some of the President’s closest confidants have shown extraordinary
elasticity down the years in their attitudes to President Saddam, America’s
on-again, off-again public enemy number one.
Mr Cheney, who has gone from warmonger to dealmaker and back to
warmonger, is just one example. Donald Rumsfeld, the current Defence
Secretary, has repeatedly raised the spectre of Iraq’s arsenal of weapons of
mass destruction. But in 1983, when Mr Rumsfeld was President Reagan’s
special envoy to Iraq, he turned a blind eye to Iraqi use of nerve and mustard gas
in its war with Iran, concentrating instead on forging a personal relationship with
the Iraqi leader, then considered a valuable US ally.
Mr Rumsfeld was actually in Baghdad on the day the United Nations first reported
Iraqi use of chemical weapons, but chose to remain silent, as did the rest of the
US establishment. Five years later, he cited his ability to make friends with
Saddam Hussein as one of his qualifications for a possible run at the presidency.
This Bush administration has been much more upfront about the role of oil in its
deliberations on Iraq than the last Bush administration. That is partly a matter of
circumstance: since the 11 September attacks, the stability of Middle Eastern oil
states has been a big policy consideration. But it also reflects the fact that much
of the Bush inner circle, including the President himself, is made up of former
oilmen. The oil and gas industry has pumped about $50m to political candidates
since the 2000 election.
There are also uncomfortably cosy ties between the government and the
defence industry. Mr Rumsfeld’s oldest friend, Frank Carlucci, a former defence
secretary himself, now heads the Carlyle Group, an investment consortium
which has a big interest in the contracting firm United Defense.
Carlyle’s board includes George Bush Sr and James Baker, the former secretary
of state. One programme alone – the Crusader artillery system – has earned
Carlyle more than $2bn in advance government contracts. Carlyle’s European
chairman is John Major, who may have played a role in the Ministry of Defence’s
controversial recent decision to declare Carlyle the “preferred bidder” for a stake
in its scientific research division.
None of these links is illegal, but that does not mean there is no conflict of
interest. Messrs Bush, Cheney and friends have either sold their stock holdings
or put them in a blind trust, meaning personal gain is off the agenda. But gain for
their friends and family may well be a by-product of the looming war against Iraq
It was only five years ago when Vice President Dick Cheney, as chief
executive of the oil-field supply corporation, Halliburton Co., was
engaged in secret business dealings with Saddam’s regime by selling
Iraq oil production equipment and spare parts to get the Iraqi oil
fields up and running, according to confidential United Nations
records.
During the 2000 presidential campaign, Cheney adamantly denied such
dealings.
While he acknowledged that his company did business with Libya and
Iran through foreign subsidiaries, Cheney said, “Iraq’s different.”
He claimed that he imposed a “firm policy” prohibiting any unit of
Halliburton against trading with Iraq.
“I had a firm policy that we wouldn’t do anything in Iraq, even
arrangements that were supposedly legal,” Cheney said on the ABC-TV
news program “This Week” on July 30, 2000.
“We’ve not done any business in Iraq since U.N. sanctions were imposed
on Iraq in 1990, and I had a standing policy that I wouldn’t do that.”
But it turns out that Cheney was lying.
It’s only through the sale of Iraqi oil that Saddam would be able to
afford to obtain such weapons.
If Saddam was in fact building nuclear and other weapons of mass
destruction, which some news reports allege could be used against
American and British troops, Cheney is partially responsible.
The Washington Post first reported Halliburton’s trade with Iraq in
February 2000.
But U.N. records obtained by The Post two years ago showed that the
dealings were more extensive than originally reported and than Vice
President Cheney has acknowledged.
As secretary of defense in the first Bush administration, Cheney
helped to lead a multinational coalition against Iraq in the Persian
Gulf War and to devise a comprehensive economic embargo to isolate
Saddam Hussein’s government.
After Cheney was named chief executive of Halliburton in 1995, he
promised to maintain a hard line against Baghdad.
But his stance changed when it appeared that Halliburton was headed
for financial disaster in the mid-1990s.
Cheney said sanctions against countries such as Iraq were hurting
corporations such as Halliburton.
“We seem to be sanction-happy as a government,” Cheney said at an
energy conference in April 1996, reported in the oil industry
publication Petroleum Finance Week.
“The problem is that the good Lord didn’t see fit to always put oil
and gas resources where there are democratic governments,” he observed
during his conference presentation.
Sanctions make U.S. businesses “the bystander who gets hit when a
train wreck occurs,” Cheney told Petroleum Finance Week.
“While virtually every other country sees the need for sanctions
against Iraq and Saddam Hussein’s regime there, Cheney sees general
agreement that the measures have not been very effective despite their
having most of the international community’s support. An individual
country’s embargo, such as that of the United States against Iran, has
virtually no effect since the target country simply signs a contract
with a non- U.S. business,” the publication reported
“That’s exactly what happened when the government told Conoco Inc.
that it could not develop an oil field there,” Cheney told Petroleum
Finance Week.
Total S.A. “simply took it over.”
In 1998, Cheney oversaw Halliburton’s acquisition of Dresser
Industries Inc., the unit that sold oil equipment to Iraq through two
subsidiaries of a joint venture with another large U.S. equipment
maker, Ingersoll-Rand Co.
The Halliburton subsidiaries, Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump
Co., sold water and sewage treatment pumps, spare parts for oil
facilities and pipeline equipment to Baghdad through French affiliates
from the first half of 1997 to the summer of 2000, U.N. records show.
Ingersoll Dresser Pump also signed contracts — later blocked by the
United States — to help repair an Iraqi oil terminal that U.S.-led
military forces destroyed in the Gulf War, the Post reported in a June
2001 story.
The Halliburton subsidiaries and several other American and foreign
oil supply companies helped Iraq increase its crude exports from $4
billion in 1997 to nearly $18 billion in 2000.
Since the program began, Iraq has exported oil worth more than $40
billion.
U.S. and European officials have argued that the increase in
production also expanded Saddam’s ability to use some of that money
for weapons, luxury goods and palaces.
Security Council diplomats estimate that Iraq may be skimming off as
much as 10 percent of the proceeds from the oil-for-food program,
according to the Post.
During his tenure as chief executive of Halliburton, Cheney pushed the
U.N. Security Council, after he became vice president; to end an
11-year embargo on sales of civilian goods, including oil related
equipment, to Iraq.
Cheney has said sanctions against countries like Iraq unfairly punish
U.S. companies.
Earlier this year, Halliburton was chosen as one of the companies to
rebuild Iraq’s dilapidated oil fields following a U.S. led attack on
the country.
U.N. documents show that Halliburton’s affiliates have had
controversial, dealings with the Iraqi regime during Cheney’s tenure
at the company.
The Clinton administration blocked one of the deals Halliburton was
trying to push through.
That deal, between Halliburton subsidiary Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co.
and Iraq, included agreements by the firm to sell $760,000 in spare
parts, compressors and firefighting equipment to refurbish an offshore
oil terminal, Khor al Amaya.
France and Russia have been warned they must support the US military invasion and occupation of Iraq if they want acess to Iraqi oilfields in a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. According to a report in today’s Tehran Times, US Senator Richard Lugar, a leading member of the Bush administration and Republican Party chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Russia and France “must be ready to stand shoulder-to-shoulder in any US-led military intervention” if they want a share of Iraqi oil.
The paper quoted Lugar as saying that Paris and Moscow oil companies will be deprived of Iraqi oil and have no share in the country’s resources if they refuse to join in the US war to oust Hussein. It noted that both the Russian Duma and the French parliament have both expressed opposition to a US military attack on Iraq
Why did so many children die under the hideous sanctions placed on Iraq at the behest of the US during the 90s? Here’s what I wrote about it:
According to Hans Graf Sponeck, the major cause of death of Iraqis, particularly children, is not starvation – it has been the intentional bombing of water installations during the war by the US and then the US-led UN sanctioning of chlorine and essential water equipment parts afterwards (on the dual purpose list until 1996).
There is incontrovertible evidence from the US government itself to show that the US knew exactly what the consequences of their destruction would be.
As far as food for oil goes, one of the most serious effects proceeding from these sanctions has been the unconscionable holds placed on essential items. Refer above to Sponeck’s article. Right now there are holds placed by the US/UK :
“The Security Council committee monitoring the sanctions against Iraq still had holds on
contracts for various supplies and equipment worth almost $4.1 billion. This figure includes
155 contracts valued at $290 million, which were in the “inactive holds” category. Contracts
are categorized as “inactive holds” after information requested by the committee is not
provided by suppliers in 60 days. Once this information is received, the relevant contract is
put back in the “active holds” category for action.”
There is also firm evidence that CIA and US Government incompetency contributed to the removal of the UNSCOM team of weapons inspectors as well as two failed coups against Saddam.
After all these stuff ups and spying (and although I don’t support this bloody dictator), I am not surprised he has remained uncooperative since 1998.
If you read the last sanctions committee meeting however, you will see that both Iraq and the League of Arab Nations are arguing for making the ME a nuclear free zone.
Finally, it is clear that sanctions do not punish Saddam or his cronies. They punish the ordinary people in Iraq, who have now suffered 11 years AFTER a war.
The price was worth it, Madeline? Really? Look what you and the cold, avaricious lackeys of empire like you have done. Millions of Iraqis dead, thousands of Americans. For what? the Iraq of today. No stable government, an environment polluted with cancerous chemicals, women’s rights set back decades, antiquities and architecture vandalised. And some still wonder why the US is despised by those who know what it has done to benefit its perverse ‘national interest’.
“Assange’s hubris in presuming to mediate global diplomacy unilaterally cannot be allowed to stand,” stated Lamo. “It is time for appropriate charges to be filed, and for Assange to be allowed to answer for them.” Lamo added.
“Mr. Assange has abused international sovereignty enough, and he should now be extended a firm invitation and comfortable transport to a court competent to hear a case based on his alleged criminal acts.”
Ultimately, what determines one’s credibility is not the names you get called or the number of people who get angry when you criticize them. What matters is whether the things you say are well-supported and accurate, to correct them if they’re not, and to subject yourself to the same accountability and transparency you demand of others.
@ggreenwald Since my #wikileaks comments are censored by @kpoulsen, I’ll put it here. Furthermore, I’ve just finished setting up space on the web for me to help document more fully Wired’s journalism malfeasance + more. Here is the comment I posted on Wired:
Is this supposed to convince anyone who is halfway paying attention?
It has been clear for some time that Threat Level has acted almost at the level of junior high school maturity, coming out with slam pieces about Wikileak’s *HTML forms* during one of the most historic achievements in journalism’s history while kpoulsen and rsingel snicker and giggle like children on their Twitter accounts.
I, too, wondered about Greenwald’s assertions about whether manning allegedly discussed Assange or a secure server.
And, Kevin, you sure drew that out.
How about some other disclosures that have never been made on this website:
1- Adrian Lamo has been caught, repeatedly, lying to reporters by myself and others working on doing the volunteer legwork of finding out the ways and means that the public has been deceived by Wired.
2- What IS a chat log, Hacker Kingpin? I wonder if Glenn Greenwald even knows this — I doubt it. A “CHAT LOG” is an absurd way of making an ASCII TEXT FILE sound more important than it is. But the story doesn’t sound anywhere near as sexy when you tell the truth, right? “Chat log” sounds official, like it is a confirmed chat that had to have been a chat between two internet peers. In reality, you couldn’t have had anything more than a text file filled with dialogue that could have been WRITTEN BY ANYONE. Does AOL keep records of chat logs? Has Wired looked into it to confirm the ASCII text files handed over to them by a guy with absolutely no credibility whatsoever was telling the truth?
Kevin: in all your years as a hacker, did you ever run across the elite hacking tool known as vi? Isn’t it true that vi is all anybody would need to produce an exact replica of the so-called “Chat Logs” you refer to all the time?
Kevin: why arent YOU suspicious of Lamo? That’s the real clincher here. The biggest mistake you could make in attempting to smooth this over is your non-stop, absurd defense of the most indefensible source ever. Someone who is on videotape saying one thing one day to one reporter and saying another thing another day to another reporter. But he’s stalwart and historically courageous to you! Julian Assange? No– he’s a coward who has only faced off against the largest and most corrupt and most violent military/government industry to ever exist in human history. You whine for sympathy regarding your own pretrial detention while simultaneously joining in a mob attack on a man whose done nothing more than expose war crimes that your magazine and all other media outlets should have been covering, instead of blah blah Apple gadget this.
I don’t know why I even bother writing this here since Wired has had a policy of censoring my comments ever since I embarrassed them so thoroughly on the very first article they ran on this story. You can go find it and watch the tone of the comments change after I stated what should have been obvious to anyone. Since then, my comments have been censored via prior restraint. Cowards.
Glenn Greenwald, many many months ago, gave you the answer to your so-called desire to “protect PFC Manning” and his privacy: agree on a third-party, have that person review the chat logs under obligation of confidentiality, and let that independent party determine if there is anything relevant in there. And let’s go from there.
You have NO argument against that proposal which he made forever ago. NONE.
Furthermore, these refutations above ignore the most significant points raised by Glenn Greenwald and many others who are not even professional journalists … people like me who will continue following through on this and documenting it and detailing for all to see in perpetuity the manner in which Wired continues to spit in the face of its readership and everything that is noble about the tradition of journalism.
Kevin and Evan both independently verified that in the unpublished portions of the chat logs between Adrian Lamo and Bradly Manning there is no further reference to private FTP servers, and no further discussion about the relationship between Manning and Assange.
That’s kind of a big deal, because the published portions of the logs do not support or back up the statements Adrian Lamo seems to have been making. And that would mean that his claims are based solely on opinion, not based on evidence in the chat logs.
IANAL, but this would not appear to be good news for anyone attempting or threatening to prosecute Julian Assange and/or Wikileaks.
What could have been a smoking gun now looks more like an empty water pistol.
The mayor of a Jewish suburb of Nazareth sparked outrage on Wednesday after refusing to allow Christmas trees to be placed in town squares, calling them provocative.
Predominantly Jewish Nazareth Illit, or Upper Nazareth, is adjacent to Nazareth, where Jesus is said to have spent much of his life. It has a sizable Arab Christian minority, as does mostly Muslim Nazareth itself.
‘The request of the Arabs to put Christmas trees in the squares in the Arab quarter of Nazareth Illit is provocative,’ Mayor Shimon Gapso told AFP.
‘Nazareth Illit is a Jewish city and it will not happen – not this year and not next year, so long as I am a mayor,’ he said of the northern Israeli town.
Here, a new, nasty form of Israeli dendrophobia (phobia of trees) is displayed. Usually, zionists are renowned for burning or chopping rampages of Palestinian olive trees, actions designed to make life less bearable for Palestinians in their own land, to encourage them to vacate so more zionist land thieves can usurp their place.
Elsewhere in the Occupied Territories, brazen atrocities and theft committed by racist dysfunctional Israel have continued unabated. The phobias revealed by Israel’s lunatic fascist acts below include pediaphobia (phobia of children), ovinaphobia (phobia of sheep), oikophobia (phobia of houses), lactaphobia (phobia of milk), alektorophobia (phobia of chickens) and an over-arching xenophobia (fear of outsiders). I am not aware of formal names for the fear of equality nor the fear of human rights, but these phobias can also be added to the list of Israel’s pathologies.
