|
Click
here for opinions from prior weeks.
[Note: The
following news and opinions primarily came from email sent by our friends.
Thank you Sirius and all the others who have forwarded these messages
to us. Due to the large volume of email we are receiving, we can only
post a sampling here, but we thank everyone for sending stories like this.
We read them all and post what we can as time permits.]
Watergate
On Acid !? (UPGRADEmag,
January 18, 2002)
“On November 7th, 2000, a clear majority of Americans came to the
conclusion that George W. Bush was unfit to govern this nation. For a
variety of dark and controversial reasons, that conclusion was thrown
over. Sometime soon, if the media’s electronic web continues to carry
these sordid stories of corruption, greed and death, the American people
will come to fully understand the consequences of that failed election.
. . . It is one thing to coddle and court a corrupt energy company for
political and financial gain. But it’s quite another to coddle and court
a murderous terrorist-supporting regime, hindering anti-terrorism investigations
in the process, for the purpose of exploiting valuable natural resources.
The former cost a number of people their retirement funds. The latter
has cost thousands of people their lives. One is criminal. The other is
abominable. George W. Bush is deeply implicated in both.”
Black
Hawk Down: Shoot first, don't ask questions afterwards
(The
Independent, 12 January 2002)
“In the 1970s and 1980s, Somalia was ruled by a corrupt president,
Mohamed Siad Barre. . . . By his last days in power, Siad Barre had leased
nearly two-thirds of Somalia to four huge American oil companies: Conoco,
Chevron, Phillips, and Amoco . . . In 1991, unfortunately for the oil
giants, Siad Barre was overthrown, and he fled the country. Somalia –
as a functioning nation state with which they could do business – fell
apart. . . . The United States meant business in Somalia: this was obvious
from the location of the American embassy, established a few days before
the US marines arrived in Mogadishu, in the Conoco corporate compound.
The Los Angeles Times reported that Bush's special envoy to Somalia
had used the Conoco compound as his temporary headquarters. . . . Of course,
it is the American deaths, and the TV image of a couple of American bodies
being dragged by enraged Somalis, rather than guilt over the massacre
of hundreds of Africans, that haunts the popular-American-media mind.
. . . US troops killed unarmed men, women and children from the outset
of their mission: ‘In one incident, Rangers took a family hostage. When
one of the women started screaming at the Americans, she was shot dead.
In another incident, a Somali prisoner was allegedly shot dead when he
refused to stop praying outside. Another was clubbed into silence.” .
. . The author of Black Hawk Down is aware of the problem with
these ‘elite, superior, special forces’: they are all white. But he doesn't
deal with what that elite whiteness means, or where it leads. The American
elite forces couldn't perform their central role in Somalia – to protect
the oil business – because they were white racists, untrained and unable
to relate to a humanitarian mission in Africa, even when corporate money
was involved.”
Even
suspected terrorists are entitled to humane treatment and a fair trial
(The
Independent, 18 January 2002)
“This is not the ‘patient justice’ of which President George Bush
spoke in his measured address to the joint houses of Congress nine days
after 11 September. The United States government is engaged in the extra-judicial
humiliation of alleged terrorists in order to satisfy the understandable
but misguided desire of many Americans for vengeance. . . . The al-Qa'ida
terrorists have committed terrible crimes – which is why it is so important
to show the value of universal human rights. That means they must be treated
not just better than they have treated others, but in accordance with
the principles of law, which include the rights to a fair trial and to
be presumed innocent until proven guilty. . . . It is this intention to
degrade that will prove most counter-productive. There seems little hope
that the US President intends to live up to the high moral principles
– the founding principles of the American nation – that he enumerated
in his address to the joint houses of Congress. He should at least, however,
be swayed by arguments of practical national interest. There can be no
worse context for the diplomatic efforts of his Secretary of State, Colin
Powell, now in Afghanistan and shortly to visit Pakistan and India, than
headlines around the world about the apparent determination of the US
to humiliate its enemies.”
Reaching
the parts other empires could not reach
(Simon
Tisdall, The Guardian, January 16, 2002)
“The United States is engaged in a strategic power grab in central
Asia of epic proportions. In previous eras, this sort of expansionism
would have been called colonialism or imperialism. . . . Having pushed,
cajoled and bribed its way into their central Asian backyard, the US clearly
has no intention of leaving any time soon. Romantics who believe this
demonstrates a commitment to rebuilding shattered Afghanistan can dream
on. . . . The task of the encircling US bases now shooting up on Afghanistan's
periphery is only partly to contain the threat of political regression
or Taliban resurgence in Kabul. Their bigger, longer-term role is to project
US power and US interests into countries previously beyond its reach.
. . . Thus Uzbekistan now finds itself home to a permanent American base
at Khanabad, housing 1,500 personnel; Manas, near Bishkek in Kyrgyzstan,
is described as a future ‘transportation hub’ housing 3,000 soldiers,
warplanes and surveillance aircraft; more airfields are under US control
in Tajikistan and Pakistan; and the Pentagon has begun regular replacement
and rotation of troops, thereby instit-utionalising what were at the outset
temporary, emergency deployments. . . . Meanwhile, the potential benefits
for the US are enormous: growing military hegemony in one of the few parts
of the world not already under Washington's sway, expanded strategic influence
at Russia and China's expense, pivotal political clout and - grail of
holy grails - access to the fabulous, non-Opec oil and gas wealth of central
Asia. If the Afghans behave themselves, they even may get to run the pipeline.”
Oil
company adviser named US representative to Afghanistan
(Patrick
Martin, World Socialist Web Site, 3 January 2002)
“President Bush has appointed a former aide to the American oil
company Unocal, Afghan-born Zalmay Khalilzad, as special envoy to Afghanistan.
. . . The nomination underscores the real economic and financial interests
at stake in the US military intervention in Central Asia. . . . As an
adviser for Unocal, Khalilzad drew up a risk analysis of a proposed gas
pipeline from the former Soviet republic of Turkmenistan across Afghanistan
and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean. He participated in talks between the
oil company and Taliban officials in 1997, which were aimed at implementing
a 1995 agreement to build the pipeline across western Afghanistan. . .
. Khalilzad also lobbied publicly for a more sympathetic US government
policy towards the Taliban. Four years ago, in an op-ed article in the
Washington Post, he defended the Taliban regime against accusations
that it was a sponsor of terrorism, writing, ‘The Taliban does not practice
the anti-U.S. style of fundamentalism practiced by Iran.’ . . . He was
a special adviser to the State Department during the Reagan administration,
lobbying successfully for accelerated US military aid to the mujahedin,
including hand-held Stinger anti-aircraft missiles which played a key
role in the war. He later became undersecretary of defense in the administration
of Bush’s father, during the US war against Iraq, then went to the Rand
Corporation, a top US military think tank. . . . After Bush was installed
as president by a 5-4 vote of the US Supreme Court, Khalilzad headed the
Bush-Cheney transition team for the Defense Department and advised incoming
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Significantly, however, he was not
named to a subcabinet position, which would have required Senate confirmation
and might have provoked uncomfortable questions about his role as an oil
company adviser in Central Asia and intermediary with the Taliban. Instead,
he was named to the National Security Council, where no confirmation vote
was needed. . . . At the NSC Khalilzad reports to Condoleeza
Rice, the national security adviser, who also served as an oil
company consultant on Central Asia. After serving in the first Bush administration
from 1989 to 1992, Rice was placed on the board of directors of Chevron
Corporation and served as its principal expert on Kazakhstan, where Chevron
holds the largest concession of any of the international oil companies.
. . . the pipeline consortium involved in the Baku-Ceyhan plan, led by
the British oil company BP, is represented by the law firm of Baker &
Botts. The principal attorney at this firm is James Baker III, secretary
of state under Bush’s father and chief spokesman for the 2000 Bush campaign
during its successful effort to shut down the Florida vote recount.”
Bloody
evidence of US blunder
(Rory
Carroll, The Guardian, January 7, 2002)
“A spokesman at the US central command in Tampa, Florida, had reassuring
news: ‘Follow-on reporting indicates that there was no collateral damage.’
. . . Some of the things his follow-on reporters missed: bloodied children's
shoes and skirts, bloodied school books, the scalp of a woman with braided
grey hair, butter toffees in red wrappers, wedding decorations. . . .
The charred meat sticking to rubble in black lumps could have been Osama
bin Laden's henchmen but survivors said it was the remains of farmers,
their wives and children, and wedding guests. They said more than 100
civilians died at this village in eastern Afghanistan. . . . About two
dozen guests had crammed into the three occupied houses for a wedding,
raising the number of occupants to more than 100, said the elder. The
bombers came early in the morning. . . . Precision-guided bombs vapourised
all five buildings and a second wave an hour later hit people digging
in the rubble and, judging from hair and flesh on the edge of three 40ft
holes some distance from the complex, those trying to flee. . . . Two
days later villagers with shovels and tractors extracted the remains.
A hand, an ankle, a bit of skull, sometimes an entire torso, and buried
some in 11 graves, each said to contain several people, and relatives
from Khost took some for burial in the mountains. . . . Haji Saifullah,
head of Paktia's shura, or tribal council, said: ‘Our local enemies are
delivering this information to the Americans that Taliban or al-Qaida
people are here.”
The
US has suppressed its own freedom of speech
(Fergal
Keane, The Independent, 19 January 2002)
“As it happens, I received a letter this morning from an old friend
of his living in Queens. After filling me in about his own life, he referred
briefly to the war and said he'd stopped watching international television
reporting because it was anti-American. He preferred, he said, the ‘Mutt
and Jeff reporting of the local TV channels’. By ‘anti-American’ I am
assuming he is referring to journalism that concentrates on civilian casualties,
and the treatment of captured Taliban and al-Qa'ida fighters. . . . Having
visited the US recently I am not surprised by his letter. There is not
so much an absence of dissent as an almost total prohibition on questioning
of the war. The few who do stick their heads above the parapet invariably
belong to the radical left and are shouted down with unprecedented ferocity.
. . . It says something about the current state of affairs when a columnist
on the conservative Washington Times worries about the absence
of serious debate on the war and suggests that the American media may
be giving George Bush a blank cheque for the creation of powerful central
government. . . . The First Amendment may guarantee freedom of speech,
but it is no protection against an atmosphere that makes traitors of the
independent-minded. As Thomas Jefferson was only too aware when the Bill
of Rights was drafted, the will of the majority must be subjected to checks
and balances if an elective dictatorship is to be avoided. . . . As Mr
Bush has said, unlike in previous American emergencies, there may never
be a point at which victory can be declared, and thus no point at which
normal civil liberties can be resumed.”
Saudis
tell US forces to get out
(Ewen
MacAskill, The Guardian, January 19, 2002)
“Senior Saudi officials have privately complained that the US has
‘outstayed its welcome’ and that the kingdom may soon request that the
American presence - a product of the Gulf war - is brought to an end.
. . . The US is reluctant to withdraw its 4,500 troops from the Prince
Sultan air base, south of Saudi's capital Riyadh, because it could be
perceived as a propaganda victory for Osama bin Laden, who frequently
protested at the presence of non-believers so close to the main Muslim
holy sites. . . . But the US ambassador to Saudi, Robert Jordan, was quoted
as saying when Mr Bloomfield arrived in the kingdom: ‘He is here for consultations
with the Saudi government to review our presence here and to discuss what
we need and what we don't need.’ . . . The kingdom is volatile, with a
stagnant economy, high unemployment, no democratic outlets and King Fahd
unable to crack down on militant clerics. . . . Hostility to the US is
widespread but that is mirrored in the US where there is a huge well of
resentment that, having fought to push back Iraq in 1991 and having protected
Saudi since, Riyadh refused to provide military help during the Afghan
campaign.”
OIL!
This war is about oil
This is a picture of the oil tanker “Condoleezza Rice” [larger
image] before Chevron quietly renamedit the “Altair Voyager” and
before President George Bush appointed Ms. Rice as National Security Advisor.
[Full Story]
Return
to Opinions
|
|