One of the questions asked in that study was, How many Vietnamese casualties would you estimate that there were during the Vietnam war? The average response on the part of Americans today is about 100,000. The official figure is about two million. The actual figure is probably three to four million. The people who conducted the study raised an appropriate question: What would we think about German political culture if, when you asked people today how many Jews died in the Holocaust, they estimated about 300,000? What would that tell us about German political culture?
- Noam Chomsky (Media Control, 2002)
In De Groene Amsterdammer van 1 april 2015 stelde Henk Hofland naar aanleiding van het geweld in Jemen met nauwelijks verholen wraaklust:
De Amerikaanse columnist Thomas Friedman is optimistisch. Laat ze elkaar maar uitputten, schrijft hij. Daar zit iets in. Sinds meer dan een halve eeuw, te beginnen bij de Suezcrisis, put het Westen zich uit in vruchteloze interventies in de regio. De kostbaarste onderneming, in Irak, is nog niet afgelopen. Zou het niet een geweldige opluchting zijn als nu buiten onze verantwoordelijkheid die twee regionale grootmachten in een uitputtend conflict verwikkeld raakten terwijl het Westen geïnteresseerd toekeek?
Wat betekent in de praktijk van alledag Hoflands opvatting: 'Daar zit iets in'? Om hierop een redelijk antwoord te kunnen geven moet het begrip 'uitputten' in dit verband worden geanalyseerd. In de realiteit van de moderne oorlogsvoering en gezien de ontelbare berichten uit de regio betekent 'uitputten' vooral het vermoorden van zoveel mogelijk onschuldige burgers om zo hoog mogelijke winsten voor het Amerikaans militair industrieel complex te genereren. Een historisch voorbeeld is de acht jaren durende Irak-Iran oorlog, waarbij een miljoen doden vielen. Ten tijde van Washington’s aanzienlijke militaire en financiële steun aan Saddam Hoessein, wiens troepen het sjiitische Iran met goedkeuring van de VS binnenvielen en daar met gifgas ontelbare slachtoffers maakten, verklaarde Kissinger dat - 'het uiteindelijke Amerikaanse belang… is dat beide partijen zullen verliezen.' Dinsdag 7 april 2015 berichtte het onafhankelijke Democracy Now!:
As Saudi Arabia continues U.S.-backed strikes in Yemen and Washington lifts its freeze on military to aid to Egypt, new figures show President Obama has overseen a major increase in weapons sales since taking office. The majority of weapons exports under Obama have gone to the Middle East and Persian Gulf. Saudi Arabia tops the list at $46 billion in new agreements.
Tijdens de uitzending van Democracy Now! kreeg William Hartung, de directeur van
the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy, and author of 'Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex,'
de volgende vraag voorgelegd:
the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy, and author of 'Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex,'
de volgende vraag voorgelegd:
What do you think the Iran nuclear deal, if anything, portends for U.S. sales to the Middle East? President Obama’s about to call a meeting at Camp David with the leaders of all the Gulf nations. Do you see them exploiting that to call for increased U.S. military purchases from the U.S.?
Hartung antwoordde:
Unfortunately, yes. You would think a reduction of tensions should reduce the arms sales, but the Saudis have been screaming about the deal, saying you’re letting Iran off the hook — which is not the case. Therefore, you have to bulk up our armaments, which is kind of insane given the amounts that have already gone there.
AMY GOODMAN: So how does the Obama administration spending on military weapons — and is it the Obama administration spend money on military weapons or just allowing the weapons to be sold to these countries? And how does it compare to the two terms of the George W. Bush administration?
WILLIAM HARTUNG: Primarily, these are sales because the Saudis and others in the Gulf can afford them, the exceptions being aid to Egypt and Israel which are the biggest recipients of U.S. military aid. Under Bush, they sold about $30 billion less than the $169 billion of the first five years of Obama. So already in five years, he’s outsold what Bush did in eight years.
AMY GOODMAN: And what does this mean for war in the world?
WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well, I think we’re seeing the results now. As mentioned in the prior segment, Saudi Arabia is using U.S. weapons to bomb Yemen, civilians have been killed, Egypt is not exactly a democratic regime, as we know. Now they’ve opened sales against them. They’ve supported dictators for many years, prior to Obama, which helped in one hand spark the Arab Spring, but also has armed the counterattacks by places like Egypt and the Saudis going into crush democracy movement and Bahrain as well as the government there. So it has been force — a negative force for many years. But I think it is spinning out of control now.
AMY GOODMAN: And your piece also points out that it is not just U.S. arms going to regimes. When countries go haywire and into chaos like in Yemen, Iraq, and Syria, U.S. weapons in up in the hands of militants.
WILLIAM HARTUNG: Exactly. We don’t know the full numbers but in Iraq, the security forces abandoned large amounts of the weaponry to Isis. U.S. armed rebels in Syria armed by the CIA, went over to join Isis. There’s $500 million missing of weapons in Yemen. Some think it’s gone to the Houthis some think it’s gone to Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Of course there’s arms on both sides because the government and the forces have split in this war. So it’s quite possible every side of that war in Yemen may have some level of U.S. weaponry. So it’s really gone haywire. It’s sort of what I call the boomerang effect, when U.S. arms end up in the hands of U.S. adversaries.
AMY GOODMAN: I’d like to ask about a recent exchange between Deutsche Bank analyst Myles Walton and Lockheed Martin Chief Executive Marillyn Hewson during an earnings call in January. Financial industry analysts use earnings calls as an opportunity to ask publicly-traded corporations like Lockheed about issues that might harm profitability. Hewson said that Lockheed was hoping to increase sales and that both the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific region were 'growth markets.'
Ook het VVD/PVDA kabinet doet mee aan het zoveel mogelijk wapens verkopen aan deze 'groeimarkten' in het kruitvat dat het Midden-Oosten heet. Zaterdag 17 januari 2015 meldde het onafhankelijke persbureau IPS, Inter Press Service, dat
'Nederlandse regering promoot wapenhandel in Midden-Oosten'
Vijftien Nederlandse en negen Belgische bedrijven zullen deelnemen aan de IDEX wapenbeurs in Abu Dhabi, van 22 tot 26 februari. Vooral de Nederlandse overheid stuurt een zware overheidsdelegatie mee. De IDEX wapenbeurs in Abu Dhabi (Verenigde Arabische Emiraten), is de grootste wapenbeurs van het Midden-Oosten, en een van de grootste ter wereld. In 2015 worden ruim 80.000 bezoekers verwacht, vooral uit het Midden-Oosten, Noord-Afrika en Azië.
Het ‘Holland Paviljoen’ wordt georganiseerd door NIDV (Nederlandse Industrie voor Defensie en Veiligheid) en NAG (Netherlands Aerospace Group), in samenwerking met de overheid. Hier zullen tien Nederlandse bedrijven hun producten voor de defensie- en veiligheidssector presenteren. Daarnaast staat een aantal bedrijven zelfstandig op de beurs.
Er is ook een ‘Belgium Paviljoen,’ georganiseerd door de Belgian Security & Defence Industry. Hier zullen vijf van de negen Belgische bedrijven hun producten presenteren.
MINISTER MEE
De Nederlandse bedrijven worden ondersteund door de ministeries van Economische Zaken, Buitenlandse Zaken en Defensie, onder leiding van Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, minister van Defensie.
'Er gaan altijd ambtenaren mee, maar dit is wel een heel zware delegatie,' zegt Wendela de Vries van Stop Wapenhandel. 'Het is duidelijk gericht op het leggen van contacten met militaire bedrijven en krijgsmachten. Het is een heel belangrijke beurs in deze sector. Het past bij het beleid. De geactualiseerde Defensie Industrie Strategie 2013 liet al zien dat de inspanningen voor markten buiten Europa worden versterkt. De vraag vanuit Europa neemt immers af. En dan zijn met name de Golfstaten, die door hun olie heel kapitaalkrachtig zijn, een interessante partner.'
DUBIEUZE BESTEMMINGEN
Nederland lijkt daarmee het voorbeeld te willen volgen van zijn zuiderburen. De militaire banden tussen België en de regio zijn al jarenlang warm. In de periode 1998-2012 heeft België alleen al aan Saoedi-Arabië voor meer dan 2 miljard euro aan wapens geleverd, blijkt uit een overzicht van Europese exportvergunningen. Saoedi-Arabië koopt gemiddeld een zesde van al het Belgische wapentuig en is daarmee na de VS de grootste klant voor België.
De Vries vindt de plannen van Nederland onverantwoord. 'De Arabische Emiraten, Saoedi-Arabië en Qatar zijn nauw betrokken bij de steun aan islamistische extremistische groepen. Er is een competitie aan de gang tussen Iran en Saoedi-Arabië, waarbinnen ook de Emiraten proberen hun militaire positie te verstevigen. In feite is er een soort wapenwedloop bezig. Ik vind het onverantwoord om handel te drijven, laat staan wapenhandel, met landen die op zulke schaal mensenrechten schenden.'
http://www.duurzaamnieuws.nl/nederlandse-regering-promoot-wapenhandel-midden-oosten/
Het feit dat 'een heel zware delegatie,' naar 'het Midden Oosten' afreisde, toonde aan dat zowel de wapenfabrikanten als het Nederlands kabinet en de Nederlandse volksvertegenwoordiging geen bezwaren hebben tegen het op grote 'schaal schenden' van de 'mensenrechten,' in de regio, zolang dit maar daar gebeurt en de terreur niet naar het Europa van 'Geen Jorwert zonder Brussel' overslaat.
Al deze achtergrondinformatie wordt angstvallig door Hofland en zijn 'politiek-literaire elite' in de polder verzwegen wanneer zij het 'failliet van de Arabische cultuur' aankaarten, of wanneer de éminence grise uitroept: 'Laat ze elkaar maar uitputten.' Het werkwoord 'uitputten' betekent ondermeer: 'radbraken, slopen, uitmergelen,' benevens 'exploiteren, uitbuiten,' en van al deze synoniemen is hier inderdaad sprake. De westerse wapenfabrikanten verdienen miljarden aan het laten vermoorden van ongewapende burgers in het Midden-Oosten, en de westerse politici kijken de andere kant op, terwijl de consequenties van hun minachting voor het internationaal recht inmiddels Europa en de VS hebben bereikt, waar de angst voor terrorisme gevoed wordt door mainstream-opiniemakers. Zo is de cirkel weer rond. In tegenstelling tot rottende oorlogsdoden stinkt geld geenszins.
Henk Hofland, de 'goeroe van de Nederlandse persvrijheid,' verklaarde eens dat 'de geldpolitiek' één van de 'drie onderwerpen' is die in Nederland niet onder 'de persvrijheid' vallen. Fundamentele kritiek op het neoliberale kapitalisme is taboe voor de 'vrije pers.' Punt, uit, en zijn gehoorzaamheid aan dit verbod vormde voor Hoflands Nederlandse mainstream-collega's geen enkele belemmering om de spreekbuis van het establishment tot de 'beste journalist van de twintigste eeuw' in de polder uit te roepen. In het totalitaire mens- en wereldbeeld van de commerciële massamedia passen geen hinderlijke nuances. http://www.sdnl.nl/henk-hofland.htm Henk Hofland is het prototype van de Hollander, wisselend dominee en koopman, al naar gelang het zijn opdrachtgevers uitkomt. Moeiteloos slaagt hij erin om in strijd met de werkelijkheid in De Groene te beweren dat
Sinds meer dan een halve eeuw, te beginnen bij de Suezcrisis, put het Westen zich uit in vruchteloze interventies in de regio.
Nu de feiten:
In 1952 was koning Faroek van Egypte door een groep Arabisch-nationalisten onder leiding van kolonel Nasser afgezet en deze laatste had de macht overgenomen. Ten tijde van de Suezcrisis was Nasser president van Egypte. Hij wilde neutraal blijven tegenover de twee partijen van de Koude Oorlog, de westerse wereld en de Sovjet-Unie, en zocht samenwerking met andere landen die zich niet aan een der machtsblokken wilden binden. Nadat de Sovjet-Unie wapenleveringen aan Egypte was begonnen, zetten de Verenigde Staten en het Verenigd Koninkrijk Nasser onder druk om voor het Westen te kiezen. Nasser bleef echter bij zijn Arabisch-nationalistische en anti-imperialistische politiek en wilde vooral niets weten van de voormalige kolonisator Groot-Brittannië. Als drukmiddel stopte het Westen met de financiering van een grote stuwdam in de Nijl, de Aswandam, die voor de verdere ontwikkeling van een onafhankelijk Egypte van groot belang was. Eigenlijk zagen zowel de Verenigde Staten als het Verenigd Koninkrijk Nasser het liefst van het politiek toneel verdwijnen, maar alleen de Britten waren bereid tot het voeren van oorlog om dat doel te bereiken.
Als reactie op het intrekken van de steun aan de bouw van de stuwdam nationaliseerde Nasser in juli 1956 het Suezkanaal, dat gedeeltelijk in bezit was van een Frans-Britse maatschappij. Ook blokkeerde hij de scheepvaart van Israël door het kanaal en blokkeerde de Golf van Akaba...
Israël viel op 29 oktober 1956 de Egyptische Sinaïwoestijn en de door Egypte bestuurde Gazastrook binnen. Het Verenigd Koninkrijk, Frankrijk en Israël hadden bij de Protocollen van Sèvres in het geheim afgesproken dat het Verenigd Koninkrijk en Frankrijk een ultimatum zouden stellen aan Egypte voor teruggave van het Suezkanaal, waarna beide landen zich terug moesten trekken tot tien mijl van het kanaal. Hierbij zou Israël dus het grootste deel van de Egyptische Sinaïwoestijn bezet houden. Zoals geanticipeerd ging Egypte niet akkoord met de eis, maar Israël zou zich wel 10 mijl terugtrekken volgens de afspraak. Op dat moment werd door het Verenigd Koninkrijk en Frankrijk de oorlog verklaard aan Egypte. Pogingen om een eind te maken aan de strijd mislukten doordat de Fransen en Britten binnen de Veiligheidsraad gebruikmaakten van hun veto om zo de oorlogvoering te kunnen voortzetten. Het bijzondere was in dit geval dat de Verenigde Staten een van de supporters was van de resoluties die Israël, Frankrijk en het Verenigd Koninkrijk opriepen om de oorlogsvoering te staken. Hiermee kwam de VS tegenover drie belangrijke bondgenoten te staan. Ook zorgde dit ervoor dat de VS samen met de Sovjet-Unie tegenover Frankrijk en het Verenigd Koninkrijk kwamen te staan op diplomatiek vlak, een unieke gebeurtenis. http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suezcrisis
Met andere woorden: Israel viel Egypte aan na in het geheim met het koloniale Frankrijk en Groot Brittanië afspraken te hebben gemaakt, waarbij nieuw zionistisch expansionisme was geregeld en beide Europese mogendheden het Suezkanaal weer in bezit zouden krijgen. Dat is toch wezenlijk anders dan Hoflands leugen als zou 'het Westen' zich 'sinds meer dan een halve eeuw' hebben uitgesloofd 'in vruchteloze interventies in de regio' om 'het tij' te keren, in een poging daar een democratisch bestel te introduceren. Integendeel zelfs, zoals algemeen bekend, heeft 'het Westen' er alles aan gedaan om democratische en nationalistische regeringen, die de belangen van de eigen bevolking voorop stelden, ten val te brengen, en om mensenrechten schendende regimes aan de macht te helpen dan wel te houden en daarmee de chaos vergrotend. Dit proces voltrok zich en voltrekt zich nog steeds van Iran tot Marokko, terwijl het Westen al sinds 1948 de terreur van de zogeheten 'Joodse staat' zonder enige reserve steunt, waardoor de situatie in de islamitische wereld al meer dan een halve eeuw op scherp wordt gezet. Tot nu toe hebben de zionisten nooit geprobeerd om te integreren in de regio door allereerst af te zien van het expansionisme die ten koste gaat van de Palestijnse bevolking. Dit proces begon al bij de grondlegger van het zionisme, de in Boedapest geboren joodse ideoloog Theodor Herzl, van wie bekend is dat hij in 1896 aan de Grootvizier In Istanboel voorstelde dat
the Jews would pay the Turkish foreign debt and attempt to help regulate Turkish finances if they were given Palestine as a Jewish homeland under Turkish rule.
In haar essay Het Zionisme Bij Nader Inzien schreef de zioniste van het eerste uur, de filosofe Hannah Arendt, in oktober 1945:
'Een natie is een groep mensen […] bijeen gehouden door een gemeenschappelijke vijand’ (Herzl) – een absurde doctrine die slechts dit stukje waarheid bevat: dat vele zionisten er inderdaad van overtuigd waren dat zij joden waren door de vijanden van het joodse volk. Hieruit concludeerden de zionisten dat het joodse volk zonder het anti-semitisme in de landen van de diaspora niet overleefd zou hebben; en daarom waren zij tegen elke poging om anti-semitisme op grote schaal te vernietigen. Integendeel, ze verklaarden dat onze vijanden, de anti-semieten, ‘onze betrouwbaarste vrienden zijn, de anti-semitische landen onze bondgenoten.’ (Herzl). Het resultaat kon natuurlijk niet anders zijn dan totale verwarring waarin niemand meer onderscheid kon maken tussen vriend en vijand, en waarin de vijand een vriend werd en de vriend een geheime, en daarom des te gevaarlijkere vijand… Het is algemeen bekend hoe Herzl zelf tijdens onderhandelingen met regeringen, telkens weer een beroep deed op hun belang om van het joodse vraagstuk af te komen door middel van de emigratie van de eigen joden… Toen Herzl tijdens zijn onderhandelingen (met de Turkse sultan svh) telegrammen ontving van kenners van diverse onderdrukte nationaliteiten, die protesteerden tegen het sluiten van overeenkomsten met een regering die zojuist honderdduizenden Armeniërs had afgemaakt, was zijn commentaar daarom alleen: ‘Dit zal mij van pas komen bij de sultan.’
In 1895 schreef Herzl in zijn dagboek:
try to spirit the penniless [Palestinian] population across the border by denying it any employment in our own country… Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.
Om hier naderhand aan toe te voegen:
We shall bestow enormous benefits upon Turkey and confer big gifts upon the intermediaries, if we obtain Palestine. This means nothing less than its cession as an independent country. In return we shall thoroughly straighten out Turkey's finances. (volume 1, page 344)
Op 19 juni 1896 schreef hij in zijn dagboek:
The Sultan [Abdulhamid Han] said:
'If Mr.Herzl is as much your friend as you are mine, then advise him not to take another step in this matter. I cannot sell even a foot of land, for it does not belong to me, but to my people. My people have won this empire by fighting for it with their blood and have fertilized it with their blood. We will again cover it with our blood before we allow it to be wrested away from us. The men of two of my regiments from Syria and Palestine let themselves be killed one by one at Plevna (waar een grote slag werd uitgevochten tijdens de Russisch-Turkse Oorlog. svh). Not one of them yielded; they all gave their lives on that battlefield. The Turkish Empire belongs not to me, but to the Turkish people. I cannot give away any part of it. Let the Jews save their billions. When my Empire is partitioned, they may get Palestine for nothing. But only our corpse will be divided. I will not agree to vivisection.'
Zonder de historische context te geven is elke mening over welk onderwerp dan ook absurd. Wanneer, zoals Hofland doet, oorzaak en gevolg worden verzwegen dan zijn de huidige ontwikkelingen volstrekt onverklaarbaar. En dat is Hoflands bedoeling ook, hij probeert complexe fenomenen terug te brengen tot een manicheïsche strijd tussen Goed en Kwaad, waarbij het Westen 'vredestichtend' is, en het Oosten oorlogszuchtig waardoor het
een geweldige opluchting [zou] zijn als nu buiten onze verantwoordelijkheid die twee regionale grootmachten in een uitputtend conflict verwikkeld raakten terwijl het Westen geïnteresseerd toekeek?
Let op wat Hofland hier in eerste instantie poneert. Het zou 'een geweldige opluchting zijn' als de burgers van allereerst Saoedi-Arabië en Iran de dupe worden van geavanceerde, uiterst vernietigende wapens, waarmee een 'uitputtend conflict' tegenwoordig wordt gevoerd. Een voor de bevolking 'uitputtend conflict,' wel te verstaan, aangezien de machtigen zich zowel daar als hier afdoende weten te 'beveiligen' tegen de verschrikkingen van oorlogsgeweld. Maar ook dit is een 'nuance' die volledig aan de opiniemaker van De Groene voorbij gaat. Dat de huidige generatie wapens geen onderscheid kunnen maken tussen combattanten en non-combattanten is voor hem in dit geval een te verwaarlozen detail, dat hem kennelijk niet belet om 'geïnteresseerd' toe te kijken hoe zo'n bloedbad zich voltrekt. Hier spreekt een volgeling van Henry Kissinger, de autoriteit die tijdens de Irak-Iran oorlog verklaarde dat 'het uiteindelijke Amerikaanse belang' simpelweg 'is dat beide partijen zullen verliezen.' De nazi's mogen dan wel de Tweede Wereldoorlog hebben hebben verloren, maar de machiavellistische nazi-mentaliteit is nog steeds springlevend. 'Geïnteresseerd' toekijken hoe vrouwen, kinderen, en bejaarden worden afgeslacht. Ziehier de mentaliteit van een hoogbejaarde in Nederland alom gerespecteerde dwaas, die in De Groene Amsterdammer elke week de ruimte krijgt om in wezen fascistische opvattingen op de lezers los te laten.
Ik eindig dit keer met een intellectueel van wereldnaam die al meer dan een halve eeuw de westerse mainstream-media kritisch volgt:
Ik eindig dit keer met een intellectueel van wereldnaam die al meer dan een halve eeuw de westerse mainstream-media kritisch volgt:
Noam Chomsky on the New York Times' Media Bias
The media reflects, uncritically, the approved doctrine: that the U.S. owns the world, and it does so by right.
A front-page article is devoted to a flawed story about a campus rape in the journal Rolling Stone, exposed in the leading academic journal of media critique. So severe is this departure from journalistic integrity that it is also the subject of the lead story in the business section, with a full inside page devoted to the continuation of the two reports. The shocked reports refer to several past crimes of the press: a few cases of fabrication, quickly exposed, and cases of plagiarism ('too numerous to list'). The specific crime of Rolling Stone is 'lack of skepticism,' which is 'in many ways the most insidious' of the three categories.
It is refreshing to see the commitment of the Times to the integrity of journalism.
On page 7 of the same issue, there is an important story by Thomas Fuller headlined 'One Woman’s Mission to free Laos from Unexploded Bombs.' It reports the 'single-minded effort' of a Lao-American woman, Channapha Khamvongsa, 'to rid her native land of millions of bombs still buried there, the legacy of a nine-year American air campaign that made Laos one of the most heavily bombed places on earth' –- soon to be outstripped by rural Cambodia, following the orders of Henry Kissinger to the U.S. air force: 'A massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. Anything that flies on anything that moves.'
A comparable call for virtual genocide would be very hard to find in the archival record. It was mentioned in the Times in an article on released tapes of President Nixon, and elicited little notice.
The Fuller story on Laos reports that as a result of Ms. Khamvongsa’s lobbying, the U.S. increased its annual spending on removal of unexploded bombs by a munificent US$12 million. The most lethal are cluster bombs, which are designed to 'cause maximum casualties to troops' by spraying 'hundreds of bomblets onto the ground.' About 30 percent remain unexploded, so that they kill and maim children who pick up the pieces, farmers who strike them while working, and other unfortunates. An accompanying map features Xieng Khouang province in northern Laos, better known as the Plain of Jars, the primary target of the intensive bombing, which reached its peak of fury in 1969.
Fuller reports that Ms. Khamvongsa 'was spurred into action when she came across a collection of drawings of the bombings made by refugees and collected by Fred Branfman, an antiwar activist who helped expose the Secret War.' The drawings appear in the late Fred Branfman’s remarkable book Voices from the Plain of Jars, published in 1972, republished by the U. of Wisconsin press in 2013 with a new introduction.
The drawings vividly display the torment of the victims, poor peasants in a remote area that had virtually nothing to do with the Vietnam war, as officially conceded.
One typical report by a 26 year-old nurse captures the nature of the air war: 'There wasn't a night when we thought we'd live until morning, never a morning we thought we'd survive until night. Did our children cry? Oh, yes, and we did also. I just stayed in my cave. I didn't see the sunlight for two years. What did I think about? Oh, I used to repeat, "please don't let the planes come, please don't let the planes come, please don't let the planes come."'
Branfman’s valiant efforts did indeed bring some awareness of this hideous atrocity. His assiduous research also unearthed the reasons for the savage destruction of a helpless peasant society. He exposes the reasons once again in the introduction to the new edition of Voices. In his words:
'One of the most shattering revelations about the bombing was discovering why it had so vastly increased in 1969, as described by the refugees. I learned that after President Lyndon Johnson had declared a bombing halt over North Vietnam in November 1968, he had simply diverted the planes into northern Laos. There was no military reason for doing so. It was simply because, as U.S. Deputy Chief of Mission Monteagle Stearns testified to the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in October 1969, "Well, we had all those planes sitting around and couldn't just let them stay there with nothing to do."'
Therefore the unused planes were unleashed on poor peasants, devastating the peaceful Plain of Jars, far from the ravages of Washington’s murderous wars of aggression in Indochina.
Let us now see how these revelations are transmuted into New York Times Newspeak: 'The targets were North Vietnamese troops — especially along the Ho Chi Minh Trail, a large part of which passed through Laos — as well as North Vietnam’s Laotian Communist allies.'
Compare the words of the U.S. Deputy Chief of Mission, and the heart-rending drawings and testimony in Fred Branfman’s cited collection.
True, the reporter has a source: U.S. propaganda. That surely suffices to overwhelm mere fact about one of the major crimes of the post-World War II era, as detailed in the very source he cites: Fred Branfman’s crucial revelations.
We can be confident that this colossal lie in the service of the state will not merit lengthy exposure and denunciation of disgraceful misdeeds of the Free Press, such as plagiarism and lack of skepticism.
The same issue of the New York Times treats us to a report by the inimitable Thomas Friedman, earnestly relaying the words of President Obama presenting what Friedman labels 'the Obama Doctrine' -– every President has to have a Doctrine. The profound Doctrine is '"engagement," combined with meeting core strategic needs.'
The President illustrated with a crucial case: 'You take a country like Cuba. For us to test the possibility that engagement leads to a better outcome for the Cuban people, there aren’t that many risks for us. It’s a tiny little country. It’s not one that threatens our core security interests, and so [there’s no reason not] to test the proposition. And if it turns out that it doesn’t lead to better outcomes, we can adjust our policies.'
Here the Nobel Peace laureate expands on his reasons for undertaking what the leading US left-liberal intellectual journal, the New York Review, hails as the 'brave' and 'truly historic step' of reestablishing diplomatic relations with Cuba. It is a move undertaken in order to 'more effectively empower the Cuban people,' the hero explained, our earlier efforts to bring them freedom and democracy having failed to achieve our noble goals.
The earlier efforts included a crushing embargo condemned by the entire world (Israel excepted) and a brutal terrorist war. The latter is as usual wiped out of history, apart from failed attempts to assassinate Castro, a very minor feature, acceptable because it can be dismissed with scorn as ridiculous CIA shenanigans.
Turning to the declassified internal record, we learn that these crimes were undertaken because of Cuba’s 'successful defiance' of U.S. policy going back to the Monroe Doctrine, which declared Washington’s intent to rule the hemisphere. All unmentionable, along with too much else to recount here.
Searching further we find other gems, for example, the front-page think piece on the Iran deal by Peter Baker a few days earlier, warning about the Iranian crimes regularly listed by Washington’s propaganda system. All prove to be quite revealing on analysis, though none more so than the ultimate Iranian crime: 'destabilizing' the region by supporting 'Shiite militias that killed American soldiers in Iraq.'
Here again is the standard picture. When the U.S. invades Iraq, virtually destroying it and inciting sectarian conflicts that are tearing the country and now the whole region apart, that counts as 'stabilization' in official and hence media rhetoric. When Iran supports militias resisting the aggression, that is 'destabilization.' And there could hardly be a more heinous crime than killing American soldiers attacking one’s homes.
All of this, and far, far more, makes perfect sense if we show due obedience and uncritically accept approved doctrine: The U.S. owns the world, and it does so by right, for reasons also explained lucidly in the New York Review, in a March 2015 article by Jessica Matthews, former president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: 'American contributions to international security, global economic growth, freedom, and human well-being have been so self-evidently unique and have been so clearly directed to others’ benefit that Americans have long believed that the U.S. amounts to a different kind of country. Where others push their national interests, the U.S. tries to advance universal principles.'
Defense rests.
This content was originally published by teleSUR at the following address:
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/Noam-Chomsky-on-the-New-York-Times-Media-Bias-20150407-0027.html. If you intend to use it, please cite the source and provide a link to the original article. www.teleSURtv.net/english
Volgende keer meer over de Hoflanden van de mainstream. H.J. A.Hofland in De Groene Amsterdammer:
'Zou het niet een geweldige opluchting zijn als nu buiten onze verantwoordelijkheid die twee regionale grootmachten in een uitputtend conflict verwikkeld raakten terwijl het Westen geïnteresseerd toekeek?'
LOBBYISTS FOR SPIES APPOINTED TO OVERSEE SPYING
BY LEE FANG @lhfang
Who’s keeping watch of the National Security Agency? In Congress, the answer in more and more cases is that the job is going to former lobbyists for NSA contractors and other intelligence community insiders.
A wave of recent appointments has placed intelligence industry insiders into key Congressional roles overseeing intelligence gathering. The influx of insiders is particularly alarming because lawmakers in Washington are set to take up a series of sensitive surveillance and intelligence issues this year, from reform of the Patriot Act to far-reaching “information sharing” legislation.
After the first revelations of domestic surveillance by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, President Obama defended the spying programs by claiming they were “subject to congressional oversight and congressional reauthorization and congressional debate.” But as Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., and other members of Congress have pointed out, there is essentially a “two-tiered” system for oversight, with lawmakers and staff on specialized committees, such as the House and Senate committees on Intelligence and Homeland Security, controlling the flow of information and routinely excluding other Congress members, even those who have asked for specific information relating to pending legislation.
The Intercept reviewed the new gatekeepers in Congress, the leading staffers on the committees overseeing intelligence and surveillance matters, and found a large number of lobbyists and consultants passing through the revolving door between the intelligence community and the watchdogs who purportedly oversee the intelligence community. We reached out to each of them earlier this week and have yet to hear back:
House Intelligence Committee top staffer lobbied for intelligence contractors like Boeing
Jeff Shockey (s-3group.com)
In January, Jeffrey Shockey became the most powerful staffer on the House Intelligence Committee after Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., named him staff director, the highest ranking staff assignment. Shockey has gone in and out of lobbying and congressional work for over two decades. As a staffer for Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., back in 1996, he was one of several staffers to vacation in the Northern Mariana Islands on a trip sponsored by Jack Abramoff, a lobbyist later convicted on corruption charges, who was then representing the Mariana government in a bid to downplay concerns over labor conditions on the island’s factories, which included allegations of sweatshop-like environments and forced abortions. Shockey later became a lobbyist himself, helping his military industry clients win over $150 million in earmarks from Lewis’s appropriations committee, an arrangement that led to a federal investigation. In recent years, Shockey launched his own lobbying firm, and a partnership with former General Stanley McChrystal, to represent a number of companies that work on behalf of the military and in some cases intelligence agencies like the NSA, including Academi (the firm formerly known as Blackwater), Boeing, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, United Launch Technologies and United Launch Alliance. Disclosures show Shockey earned over $1.2 million last year and is set to receive over $1.1 million in three installments as a payout for leaving his firm to become a public servant.
Lead House overseer of information technology worked for the CIA
Will Hurd (AP)
After winning an upset victory in the midterm election last year, Rep. Will Hurd, R-Tex., was appointed to become chairman of a new House Oversight Subcommittee on information technology. As Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, explained to Roll Call, this new subcommittee will have jurisdiction over anything dealing with technology, from NSA data collection to cybersecurity. Hurd is no ordinary member of Congress. Before running for office, Hurd worked in offensive cyberoperations as a CIA officer, joined the Crumpton Group, a private intelligence firm led by a former CIA official, and later helped build a cybersecurity company called FusionX.
Last year he advised an NSA contractor, this year he is a leader of Senate Intelligence Committee staff
Sen. Richard Burr, the North Carolina Republican who chairs the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, appointed as the committee’s Deputy Staff Director Dr. Robert Kadlec, a consultant who earned $451,000 last year advising a number of intelligence-related companies, including Invincea, a DARPA project, and Scitor, a contractor to the NSA. Another recently minted Senate Intelligence Committee staffer is Matthew Pollard, who previously worked as a lobbyist for Orbital Sciences Corporation, a company that provides “space-based military and intelligence operations,” according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Intelligence Online, a trade publication for the intelligence industry, reported that DARPA contracts with Orbital to work on round-the-clock global imagery technology. Pollard is a bipartisan staff member, meaning he serves both the majority and minority members on the committee.
Former defense- and cybersecurity-industry staffers lead staffers at Homeland Security committees
Jena Baker McNeill (chertoffgroup.com)
The House and Senate Homeland Security Committees have also undergone staff changes. Chairman Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., promoted Jena Baker McNeill, a former senior associate to the Chertoff Group, to deputy staff director for the Senate Homeland Security Committee. The Chertoff Group is a consulting firm founded by former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff that serves the multibillion-dollar cybersecurity and intelligence industry. Former CACI International Vice President Brendan Shields became staff director of the House Homeland Security Committee in April of last year. CACI is a defense contractor that gained infamy for its management of the Abu Ghraib prison complex in Iraq. The firm, however, specializes in informational technology for the military and has participated in a number of acquisitions in recent years to break further into intelligence agency work.
Lead House cybersecurity watchdog was lawyer for private spying firm and major defense contractor
John Ratcliffe (AP)
Like Rep. Hurd, Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Tex., is another freshman lawmaker who was instantly awarded the chairmanship of a specialized committee overseeing cybersecurity and surveillance issues. Ratliffe is the chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, a position overseeing new information-sharing measures decried by privacy advocates as “cybersurveillance.” Before running for Congress, Ratcliffe was a lawyer with the Ashcroft Law Firm, the company founded by former Attorney General John Ashcroft. Ratcliffe’s personal finance disclosure reveals that he represented Huntington Ingalls, a major defense contractor, as well as as well as Stratfor, a private intelligence firm that reportedly conducted work for companies including “Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon, as well as US government agencies like the Department of Homeland Security, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Marines.”
Lobbyist influence is a particularly sensitive issue when it comes to intelligence committees, since those committees oversee secret “black budgets” in which money is disbursed with greatly reduced public oversight. The potential for self dealing is significant; former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, R-Calif., was caught accepting bribes to essentially earmark government contracts into a black budget.
Democrats have appointed fewer lobbyists to power for intelligence-related committees in recent years, but have not been immune to similar influence-peddling scandals concerning defense contracts. Former House Intelligence Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Tex., raised $50,000 in campaign cash from a lobbying shop called the PMA Group just before earmarking defense contract funds to PMA Group clients. The PMA Group’s founder, Paul Magliocchetti, was later convicted for making false statements and making illegal campaign donations.
But lobbyist control over the House and Senate intelligence and homeland security committees may have a profound impact on a range of surveillance issues debated by Congress this year, including the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act and the Patriot Act.
“This is an extreme case of an industry capturing the legislative committees that oversee the industry,” says Craig Holman, a lobbying and government ethics expert at Public Citizen, an advocacy group with a strong focus on corporate accountability. “While the reverse revolving door, in which industry moves their lobbyists and executives into the government committees and agencies that regulate the industry, is disturbingly commonplace in most sectors, this sounds like the cybersecurity industry has a lock on the relevant congressional committees.”
Photo: House Intelligence Committee
Email the author: lee.fang@theintercept.com
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/09/lobbyists-for-spies-appointed-to-oversee-spying/
'Zou het niet een geweldige opluchting zijn als nu buiten onze verantwoordelijkheid die twee regionale grootmachten in een uitputtend conflict verwikkeld raakten terwijl het Westen geïnteresseerd toekeek?'
LOBBYISTS FOR SPIES APPOINTED TO OVERSEE SPYING
BY LEE FANG @lhfang
Who’s keeping watch of the National Security Agency? In Congress, the answer in more and more cases is that the job is going to former lobbyists for NSA contractors and other intelligence community insiders.
A wave of recent appointments has placed intelligence industry insiders into key Congressional roles overseeing intelligence gathering. The influx of insiders is particularly alarming because lawmakers in Washington are set to take up a series of sensitive surveillance and intelligence issues this year, from reform of the Patriot Act to far-reaching “information sharing” legislation.
After the first revelations of domestic surveillance by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, President Obama defended the spying programs by claiming they were “subject to congressional oversight and congressional reauthorization and congressional debate.” But as Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., and other members of Congress have pointed out, there is essentially a “two-tiered” system for oversight, with lawmakers and staff on specialized committees, such as the House and Senate committees on Intelligence and Homeland Security, controlling the flow of information and routinely excluding other Congress members, even those who have asked for specific information relating to pending legislation.
The Intercept reviewed the new gatekeepers in Congress, the leading staffers on the committees overseeing intelligence and surveillance matters, and found a large number of lobbyists and consultants passing through the revolving door between the intelligence community and the watchdogs who purportedly oversee the intelligence community. We reached out to each of them earlier this week and have yet to hear back:
House Intelligence Committee top staffer lobbied for intelligence contractors like Boeing
Jeff Shockey (s-3group.com)
In January, Jeffrey Shockey became the most powerful staffer on the House Intelligence Committee after Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., named him staff director, the highest ranking staff assignment. Shockey has gone in and out of lobbying and congressional work for over two decades. As a staffer for Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., back in 1996, he was one of several staffers to vacation in the Northern Mariana Islands on a trip sponsored by Jack Abramoff, a lobbyist later convicted on corruption charges, who was then representing the Mariana government in a bid to downplay concerns over labor conditions on the island’s factories, which included allegations of sweatshop-like environments and forced abortions. Shockey later became a lobbyist himself, helping his military industry clients win over $150 million in earmarks from Lewis’s appropriations committee, an arrangement that led to a federal investigation. In recent years, Shockey launched his own lobbying firm, and a partnership with former General Stanley McChrystal, to represent a number of companies that work on behalf of the military and in some cases intelligence agencies like the NSA, including Academi (the firm formerly known as Blackwater), Boeing, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, United Launch Technologies and United Launch Alliance. Disclosures show Shockey earned over $1.2 million last year and is set to receive over $1.1 million in three installments as a payout for leaving his firm to become a public servant.
Lead House overseer of information technology worked for the CIA
Will Hurd (AP)
After winning an upset victory in the midterm election last year, Rep. Will Hurd, R-Tex., was appointed to become chairman of a new House Oversight Subcommittee on information technology. As Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, explained to Roll Call, this new subcommittee will have jurisdiction over anything dealing with technology, from NSA data collection to cybersecurity. Hurd is no ordinary member of Congress. Before running for office, Hurd worked in offensive cyberoperations as a CIA officer, joined the Crumpton Group, a private intelligence firm led by a former CIA official, and later helped build a cybersecurity company called FusionX.
Last year he advised an NSA contractor, this year he is a leader of Senate Intelligence Committee staff
Sen. Richard Burr, the North Carolina Republican who chairs the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, appointed as the committee’s Deputy Staff Director Dr. Robert Kadlec, a consultant who earned $451,000 last year advising a number of intelligence-related companies, including Invincea, a DARPA project, and Scitor, a contractor to the NSA. Another recently minted Senate Intelligence Committee staffer is Matthew Pollard, who previously worked as a lobbyist for Orbital Sciences Corporation, a company that provides “space-based military and intelligence operations,” according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Intelligence Online, a trade publication for the intelligence industry, reported that DARPA contracts with Orbital to work on round-the-clock global imagery technology. Pollard is a bipartisan staff member, meaning he serves both the majority and minority members on the committee.
Former defense- and cybersecurity-industry staffers lead staffers at Homeland Security committees
Jena Baker McNeill (chertoffgroup.com)
The House and Senate Homeland Security Committees have also undergone staff changes. Chairman Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., promoted Jena Baker McNeill, a former senior associate to the Chertoff Group, to deputy staff director for the Senate Homeland Security Committee. The Chertoff Group is a consulting firm founded by former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff that serves the multibillion-dollar cybersecurity and intelligence industry. Former CACI International Vice President Brendan Shields became staff director of the House Homeland Security Committee in April of last year. CACI is a defense contractor that gained infamy for its management of the Abu Ghraib prison complex in Iraq. The firm, however, specializes in informational technology for the military and has participated in a number of acquisitions in recent years to break further into intelligence agency work.
Lead House cybersecurity watchdog was lawyer for private spying firm and major defense contractor
John Ratcliffe (AP)
Like Rep. Hurd, Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Tex., is another freshman lawmaker who was instantly awarded the chairmanship of a specialized committee overseeing cybersecurity and surveillance issues. Ratliffe is the chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, a position overseeing new information-sharing measures decried by privacy advocates as “cybersurveillance.” Before running for Congress, Ratcliffe was a lawyer with the Ashcroft Law Firm, the company founded by former Attorney General John Ashcroft. Ratcliffe’s personal finance disclosure reveals that he represented Huntington Ingalls, a major defense contractor, as well as as well as Stratfor, a private intelligence firm that reportedly conducted work for companies including “Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon, as well as US government agencies like the Department of Homeland Security, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Marines.”
Lobbyist influence is a particularly sensitive issue when it comes to intelligence committees, since those committees oversee secret “black budgets” in which money is disbursed with greatly reduced public oversight. The potential for self dealing is significant; former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, R-Calif., was caught accepting bribes to essentially earmark government contracts into a black budget.
Democrats have appointed fewer lobbyists to power for intelligence-related committees in recent years, but have not been immune to similar influence-peddling scandals concerning defense contracts. Former House Intelligence Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Tex., raised $50,000 in campaign cash from a lobbying shop called the PMA Group just before earmarking defense contract funds to PMA Group clients. The PMA Group’s founder, Paul Magliocchetti, was later convicted for making false statements and making illegal campaign donations.
But lobbyist control over the House and Senate intelligence and homeland security committees may have a profound impact on a range of surveillance issues debated by Congress this year, including the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act and the Patriot Act.
“This is an extreme case of an industry capturing the legislative committees that oversee the industry,” says Craig Holman, a lobbying and government ethics expert at Public Citizen, an advocacy group with a strong focus on corporate accountability. “While the reverse revolving door, in which industry moves their lobbyists and executives into the government committees and agencies that regulate the industry, is disturbingly commonplace in most sectors, this sounds like the cybersecurity industry has a lock on the relevant congressional committees.”
Photo: House Intelligence Committee
Email the author: lee.fang@theintercept.com
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/09/lobbyists-for-spies-appointed-to-oversee-spying/
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten