Every Saturday – Anti-War – Progressive Truth Teach-in
Coming up at 9:00am Pacific * 12 noon Eastern * 17:00 GMT
Will be archived here after the broadcast by Monday.


Militant Protests Continue Across Eqypt
Militant Protests across Egypt continue, as demonstrators ignore a government curfew, and apparently set fire to the Ruling Party Headquaters: Meanwhile President Hosni Mubarak addressed the country in the middle of the night, and announced he is sacking his entire government, but he will stay on as head of state. And acccording to remarks by President Obama today, The US of A is apparently standing by its Man. We’ll have a response to Mubarak’s speech, hear about the potential role unions in Egypt might play in the people’s uprising, and about a protest planned in support of the people of Egypt. A Flashpoints Radio Production.

The Anti-war Progressive Teach-in broaches upon some of the most highly charged subjects of our day—War & Peace, national healthcare, womens rights, human rights, civil rights, torture, vets against the war, freedom, democracy, protest, demonstrations, etc. We scour the world to find and gather debates and presentations that are extremely informative and educational. Related subjects are also discussed. It provides key information for the uninitiated and the initiated alike.

For the first time in human history almost all of humanity is politically activated, politically conscious and politically interactive… The resulting global political activism is generating a surge in the quest for personal dignity, cultural respect and economic opportunity in a world painfully scarred by memories of centuries-long alien colonial or imperial domination… The worldwide yearning for human dignity is the central challenge inherent in the phenomenon of global political awakening… That awakening is socially massive and politically radicalizing… The nearly universal access to radio, television and increasingly the Internet is creating a community of shared perceptions and envy that can be galvanized and channeled by demagogic political or religious passions. These energies transcend sovereign borders and pose a challenge both to existing states as well as to the existing global hierarchy, on top of which America still perches…

The youth of the Third World are particularly restless and resentful. The demographic revolution they embody is thus a political time-bomb, as well… Their potential revolutionary spearhead is likely to emerge from among the scores of millions of students concentrated in the often intellectually dubious “tertiary level” educational institutions of developing countries. Depending on the definition of the tertiary educational level, there are currently worldwide between 80 and 130 million “college” students. Typically originating from the socially insecure lower middle class and inflamed by a sense of social outrage, these millions of students are revolutionaries-in-waiting, already semi-mobilized in large congregations, connected by the Internet and pre-positioned for a replay on a larger scale of what transpired years earlier in Mexico City or in Tiananmen Square. Their physical energy and emotional frustration is just waiting to be triggered by a cause, or a faith, or a hatred…

[The] major world powers, new and old, also face a novel reality: while the lethality of their military might is greater than ever, their capacity to impose control over the politically awakened masses of the world is at a historic low. To put it bluntly: in earlier times, it was easier to control one million people than to physically kill one million people; today, it is infinitely easier to kill one million people than to control one million people.[1]

- Zbigniew Brzezinski

Former U.S. National Security Advisor

Co-Founder of the Trilateral Commission

Member, Board of Trustees, Center for Strategic and International Studies

An uprising in Tunisia led to the overthrow of the country’s 23-year long dictatorship of President Ben Ali. A new ‘transitional’ government was formed, but the protests continued demanding a totally new government without the relics of the previous tyranny. Protests in Algeria have continued for weeks, as rage mounts against rising food prices, corruption and state oppression. Protests in Jordan forced the King to call on the military to surround cities with tanks and set up checkpoints. Tens of thousands of protesters marched on Cairo demanding an end to the 30-year dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak. Thousands of activists, opposition leaders and students rallied in the capitol of Yemen against the corrupt dictatorship of President Saleh, in power since 1978. Saleh has been, with U.S. military assistance, attempting to crush a rebel movement in the north and a massive secessionist movement growing in the south, called the “Southern Movement.” Protests in Bolivia against rising food prices forced the populist government of Evo Morales to backtrack on plans to cut subsidies. Chile erupted in protests as demonstrators railed against rising fuel prices. Anti-government demonstrations broke out in Albania, resulting in the deaths of several protesters.

It seems as if the world is entering the beginnings of a new revolutionary era: the era of the ‘Global Political Awakening.’ While this ‘awakening’ is materializing in different regions, different nations and under different circumstances, it is being largely influenced by global conditions. The global domination by the major Western powers, principally the United States, over the past 65 years, and more broadly, centuries, is reaching a turning point. The people of the world are restless, resentful, and enraged. Change, it seems, is in the air. As the above quotes from Brzezinski indicate, this development on the world scene is the most radical and potentially dangerous threat to global power structures and empire. It is not a threat simply to the nations in which the protests arise or seek change, but perhaps to a greater degree, it is a threat to the imperial Western powers, international institutions, multinational corporations and banks that prop up, arm, support and profit from these oppressive regimes around the world. Thus, America and the West are faced with a monumental strategic challenge: what can be done to stem the Global Political Awakening? Zbigniew Brzezinski is one of the chief architects of American foreign policy, and arguably one of the intellectual pioneers of the system of globalization. Thus, his warnings about the ‘Global Political Awakening’ are directly in reference to its nature as a threat to the prevailing global hierarchy. As such, we must view the ‘Awakening’ as the greatest hope for humanity. Certainly, there will be mainy failures, problems, and regressions; but the ‘Awakening’ has begun, it is underway, and it cannot be so easily co-opted or controlled as many might assume.

The reflex action of the imperial powers is to further arm and support the oppressive regimes, as well as the potential to organize a destabilization through covert operations or open warfare (as is being done in Yemen). The alterantive is to undertake a strategy of “democratization” in which Western NGOs, aid agencies and civil society organizations establish strong contacts and relationships with the domestic civil society in these regions and nations. The objective of this strategy is to organize, fund and help direct the domestic civil society to produce a democratic system made in the image of the West, and thus maintain continuity in the international hierarchy. Essentially, the project of “democratization” implies creating the outward visible constructs of a democratic state (multi-party elections, active civil society, “independent” media, etc) and yet maintain continuity in subservience to the World Bank, IMF, multinational corporations and Western powers.
It appears that both of these strategies are being simultaneously imposed in the Arab world: enforcing and supporting state oppression and building ties with civil society organizations. The problem for the West, however, is that they have not had the ability to yet establish strong and dependent ties with civil society groups in much of the region, as ironically, the oppressive regimes they propped up were and are unsurprisingly resistant to such measures. In this sense, we must not cast aside these protests and uprisings as being instigated by the West, but rather that they emerged organically, and the West is subsequently attempting to co-opt and control the emerging movements.

Part 1 of this essay focuses on the emergence of these protest movements and uprisings, placing it in the context of the Global Political Awakening. Part 2 will examine the West’s strategy of “democratic imperialism” as a method of co-opting the ‘Awakening’ and installing “friendly” governments.

The Tunisian Spark

A July 2009 diplomatic cable from America’s Embassy in Tunisia reported that, “many Tunisians are frustrated by the lack of political freedom and angered by First Family corruption, high unemployment and regional inequities. Extremism poses a continuing threat,” and that, “the risks to the regime’s long-term stability are increasing.”[2]

On Friday, 14 January 2011, the U.S.-supported 23-year long dictatorship of Tunisian president Ben Ali ended. For several weeks prior to this, the Tunisian people had risen in protest against rising food prices, stoked on by an immense and growing dissatisfaction with the political repression, and prodded by the WikiLeaks cables confirming the popular Tunisian perception of gross corruption on the part of the ruling family. The spark, it seems, was when a 26-year old unemployed youth set himself on fire in protest on December 17.

With the wave of protests sparked by the death of the 26-year old who set himself on fire on December 17, the government of Tunisia responded by cracking down on the protesters. Estimates vary, but roughly 100 people were killed in the clashes. Half of Tunisia’s 10 million people are under the age of 25, meaning that they have never known a life in Tunisia outside of living under this one dictator. Since Independence from the French empire in 1956, Tunisia has had only two leaders: Habib Bourguiba and Ben Ali.[3] The Tunisian people were rising up against a great many things: an oppressive dictatorship which has employed extensive information and internet censorship, rising food prices and inflation, a corrupt ruling family, lack of jobs for the educated youth, and a general sense and experience of exploitation, subjugation and disrespect for human dignity.

Following the ouster of Ben Ali, Prime Minister Mohamed Ghannouchi assumed presidential power and declared a “transitional government.” Yet, this just spurred more protests demanding his resignation and the resignation of the entire government. Significantly, the trade union movement had a large mobilizing role in the protests, with a lawyers union being particularly active during the initial protests.[4]

Protests in Tunisia

Social media and the Internet did play a large part in mobilizing people within Tunisia for the uprising, but it was ultimately the result of direct protests and action which led to the resignation of Ben Ali. Thus, referring to Tunisia as a “Twitter Revolution” is disingenuous.

Twitter, WikiLeaks, Facebook, Youtube, forums and blogs did have a part to play. They reflect the ability “to collectively transform the Arab information environment and shatter the ability of authoritarian regimes to control the flow of information, images, ideas and opinions.”[5] [Editors Note: The US based foundation Freedom House was involved in promoting and training some Middle East North Africa Facebook and Twitter bloggers (See also Freedom House), M. C.].

We must also keep in mind that social media has not only become an important source of mobilization of activism and information at the grassroots level, but it has also become an effective means for governments and various power structures to seek to manipulate the flow of information. This was evident in the 2009 protests in Iran, where social media became an important avenue through which the Western nations were able to advance their strategy of supporting the so-called ‘Green Revolution’ in destabilizing the Iranian government. Thus, social media has presented a new form of power, neither black nor white, in which it can be used to either advance the process of the ‘Awakening’ or control its direction.

Whereas America was publicly denouncing Iran for blocking (or attempting to block) social media in the summer of 2009, during the first several weeks of Tunisian protests (which were largely being ignored by Western media), America and the West were silent about censorship.[6] Steven Cook, writing for the elite U.S. think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations, commented on the lack of attention being paid to the Tunisian protests in the early weeks of resistance prior to the resignation of Ben Ali. He explained that while many assume that the Arab “strongmen” regimes will simply maintain power as they always have, this could be mistaken. He stated that, “it may not be the last days of Ben Ali or Mubarak or any other Middle Eastern strongman, but there is clearly something going on in the region.” However, it was the end of Ben Ali, and indeed, “there is clearly something going on in the region.”[7]

France’s President Sarkozy has even had to admit that, “he had underestimated the anger of the Tunisian people and the protest movement that ousted President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali.” During the first few weeks of protests in Tunisia, several French government officials were publicly supporting the dictatorship, with the French Foreign Minister saying that France would lend its police “knowhow” to help Ben Ali in maintaining order.[8]

Days before the ouster of Ben Ali, Hillary Clinton gave an interview in which she explained how America was worried “about the unrest and the instability,” and that, “we are not taking sides, but we are saying we hope that there can be a peaceful resolution. And I hope that the Tunisian Government can bring that about.” Clinton further lamented, “One of my biggest concerns in this entire region are the many young people without economic opportunities in their home countries.”[9] Her concern, of course, does not spur from any humanitarian considerations, but rather from inherent imperial considerations: it is simply harder to control a region of the world erupting in activism, uprisings and revolution.

The Spark Lights a Flame

Tunisia has raised the bar for the people across the Arab world to demand justice, democracy, accountability, economic stability, and freedom. Just as Tunisia’s protests were in full-swing, Algeria was experiencing mass protests, rising up largely as a result of the increasing international food prices, but also in reaction to many of the concerns of the Tunisian protesters, such as democratic accountability, corruption and freedom. A former Algerian diplomat told Al-Jazeera in early January that, “It is a revolt, and probably a revolution, of an oppressed people who have, for 50 years, been waiting for housing, employment, and a proper and decent life in a very rich country.”[10]

In mid-January, similar protests erupted in Jordan, as thousands took to the streets to protest against rising food prices and unemployment, chanting anti-government slogans. Jordan’s King Abdullah II had “set up a special task force in his palace that included military and intelligence officials to try to prevent the unrest from escalating further,” which had tanks surrounding major cities, with barriers and checkpoints established.[11]

In Yemen, the poorest nation in the Arab world, engulfed in a U.S. sponsored war against its own people, ruled by a dictator who has been in power since 1978, thousands of people protested against the government, demanding the dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh to step down. In the capitol city of Sanaa, thousands of students, activists and opposition groups chanted slogans such as, “Get out get out, Ali. Join your friend Ben Ali.”[12] Yemen has been experiencing much turmoil in recent years, with a rebel movement in the North fighting against the government, formed in 2004; as well as a massive secessionist movement in the south, called the “Southern Movement,” fighting for liberation since 2007. As the Financial Times explained:

Many Yemen observers consider the anger and secessionist sentiment now erupting in the south to be a greater threat to the country’s stability than its better publicised struggle with al-Qaeda, and the deteriorating economy is making the tension worse.

Unemployment, particularly among the young, is soaring. Even the government statistics office in Aden puts it at nearly 40 per cent among men aged 20 to 24.[13]

Protest of the Southern Movement in Yemen

On January 21, tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets in Albania, mobilized by the socialist opposition, ending with violent clashes between the police and protesters, leading to the deaths of three demonstrators. The protests have been sporadic in Albania since the widely contested 2009 elections, but took on new levels inspired by Tunisia.[14]

Israeli Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom stressed concern over the revolutionary sentiments within the Arab world, saying that, “I fear that we now stand before a new and very critical phase in the Arab world.” He fears Tunisia would “set a precedent that could be repeated in other countries, possibly affecting directly the stability of our system.”[15] Israel’s leadership fears democracy in the Arab world, as they have a security alliance with the major Arab nations, who, along with Israel itself, are American proxy states in the region. Israel maintains civil – if not quiet – relationships with the Arab monarchs and dictators. While the Arab states publicly criticize Israel, behind closed doors they are forced to quietly accept Israel’s militarism and war-mongering, lest they stand up against the superpower, America. Yet, public opinion in the Arab world is extremely anti-Israel, anti-American and pro-Iran.

In July of 2010, the results of a major international poll were released regarding public opinion in the Arab world, polling from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates. Among some of the notable findings: while Obama was well received upon entering the Presidency, with 51% expressing optimism about U.S. policy in the region in the Spring of 2009, by Summer 2010, 16% were expressing optimism. In 2009, 29% of those polled said a nuclear-armed Iran would be positive for the region; in 2010, that spiked to 57%, reflecting a very different stance from that of their governments.[16]

While America, Israel and the leaders of the Arab nations claim that Iran is the greatest threat to peace and stability in the Middle East, the Arab people do not agree. In an open question asking which two countries pose the greatest threat to the region, 88% responded with Israel, 77% with America, and 10% with Iran.[17]

At the Arab economic summit shortly following the ousting of Ben Ali in Tunisia, who was for the first time absent from the meetings, the Tunisian uprising hung heavy in the air. Arab League leader Amr Moussa said in his opening remarks at the summit, “The Tunisian revolution is not far from us,” and that, “the Arab citizen entered an unprecedented state of anger and frustration,” noting that “the Arab soul is broken by poverty, unemployment and general recession.” The significance of this ‘threat’ to the Arab leaders cannot be understated. Out of roughly 352 million Arabs, 190 million are under the age of 24, with nearly three-quarters of them unemployed. Often, “the education these young people receive doesn’t do them any good because there are no jobs in the fields they trained for.”[18]

There was even an article in the Israeli intellectual newspaper, Ha’aretz, which posited that, “Israel may be on the eve of revolution.” Explaining, the author wrote that:

Israeli civil society organizations have amassed considerable power over the years; not only the so-called leftist organizations, but ones dealing with issues like poverty, workers’ rights and violence against women and children. All of them were created in order to fill the gaps left by the state, which for its part was all too happy to continue walking away from problems that someone else was there to take on. The neglect is so great that Israel’s third sector – NGOs, charities and volunteer organizations – is among the biggest in the world. As such, it has quite a bit of power.[19]

Now the Israeli Knesset and cabinet want that power back; yet, posits the author, they “have chosen to ignore the reasons these groups became powerful,” namely:

The source of their power is the vacuum, the criminal policies of Israel’s governments over the last 40 years. The source of their power is a government that is evading its duties to care for all of its citizens and to end the occupation, and a Knesset that supports the government instead of putting it in its place.[20]

The Israeli Knesset opened investigations into the funding of Israeli human rights organizations in a political maneuver against them. However, as one article in Ha’aretz by an Israeli professor explained, these groups actually – inadvertently – play a role in “entrenching the occupation.” As the author explained:

Even if the leftist groups’ intention is to ensure upholding Palestinian rights, though, the unintentional result of their activity is preserving the occupation. Moderating and restraining the army’s activity gives it a more human and legal facade. Reducing the pressure of international organizations, alongside moderating the Palestinian population’s resistance potential, enable the army to continue to maintain this control model over a prolonged period of time.[21]

Thus, if the Israeli Knesset succeeds in getting rid of these powerful NGOs, they sow the seeds for the pressure valve in the occupied territories to be removed. The potential for massive internal protests within Israel from the left, as well as the possibility of another Intifada – uprising – in the occupied territories themselves would seem dramatically increased. Israel and the West have expressed how much distaste they hold for democracy in the region. When Gaza held a democratic election in 2006 and elected Hamas, which was viewed as the ‘wrong’ choice by Israel and America, Israel imposed a ruthless blockade of Gaza. Richard Falk, the former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Inquiry Commission for the Palestinian territories, wrote an article for Al Jazeera in which he explained that the blockade:

unlawfully restricted to subsistence levels, or below, the flow of food, medicine, and fuel. This blockade continues to this day, leaving the entire Gazan population locked within the world’s largest open-air prison, and victimized by one of the cruelest forms of belligerent occupation in the history of warfare.[22]

The situation in the occupied territories is made increasingly tense with the recent leaking of the “Palestinian Papers,” which consist of two decades of secret Israeli-Palestinian accords, revealing the weak negotiating position of the Palestinian Authority. The documents consist largely of major concessions the Palestinian Authority was willing to make “on the issues of the right of return of Palestinian refugees, territorial concessions, and the recognition of Israel.” Among the leaks, Palestinian negotiators secretly agreed to concede nearly all of East Jerusalem to Israel. Further, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (favoured by Israel and America over Hamas), was personally informed by a senior Israeli official the night before Operation Cast Lead, the December 2008 and January 2009 Israeli assault on Gaza, resulting in the deaths of over 1,000 Palestinians: “Israeli and Palestinian officials reportedly discussed targeted assassinations of Hamas and Islamic Jihad activists in Gaza.”[23]

Hamas has subsequently called on Palestinian refugees to protest over the concessions regarding the ‘right of return’ for refugees, of which the negotiators conceded to allowing only 100,000 of 5 million to return to Israel.[24] A former U.S. Ambassador to Israel and Egypt lamented that, “The concern will be that this might cause further problems in moving forward.”[25] However, while being blamed for possibly preventing the “peace process” from moving forward, what the papers reveal is that the “peace process” itself is a joke. The Palestinian Authority’s power is derivative of the power Israel allows it to have, and was propped up as a method of dealing with an internal Palestinian elite, thus doing what all colonial powers have done. The papers, then, reveal how the so-called Palestinian ‘Authority’ does not truly speak or work for the interests of the Palestinian people. And while this certainly will divide the PA from Hamas, they were already deeply divided as it was. Certainly, this will pose problems for the “peace process,” but that’s assuming it is a ‘peaceful’ process in the first part.

Is Egypt on the Edge of Revolution?

Unrest is even spreading to Egypt, personal playground of U.S.-supported and armed dictator, Hosni Mubarak, in power since 1981. Egypt is the main U.S. ally in North Africa, and has for centuries been one of the most important imperial jewels first for the Ottomans, then the British, and later for the Americans. With a population of 80 million, 60% of which are under the age of 30, who make up 90% of Egypt’s unemployed, the conditions are ripe for a repeat in Egypt of what happened in Tunisia.[26]

On January 25, 2011, Egypt experienced its “day of wrath,” in which tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets to protest against rising food prices, corruption, and the oppression of living under a 30-year dictatorship. The demonstrations were organized through the use of social media such as Twitter and Facebook. When the protests emerged, the government closed access to these social media sites, just as the Tunisian government did in the early days of the protests that led to the collapse of the dictatorship. As one commentator wrote in the Guardian:

Egypt is not Tunisia. It’s much bigger. Eighty million people, compared with 10 million. Geographically, politically, strategically, it’s in a different league – the Arab world’s natural leader and its most populous nation. But many of the grievances on the street are the same. Tunis and Cairo differ only in size. If Egypt explodes, the explosion will be much bigger, too.[27]

In Egypt, “an ad hoc coalition of students, unemployed youths, industrial workers, intellectuals, football fans and women, connected by social media such as Twitter and Facebook, instigated a series of fast-moving, rapidly shifting demos across half a dozen or more Egyptian cities.” The police responded with violence, and three protesters were killed. With tens of thousands of protesters taking to the streets, Egypt saw the largest protests in decades, if not under the entire 30-year reign of President Mubarak. Is Egypt on the verge of revolution? It seems too soon to tell. Egypt, it must be remembered, is the second major recipient of U.S. military assistance in the world (following Israel), and thus, its police state and military apparatus are far more advanced and secure than Tunisia’s. Clearly, however, something is stirring. As Hilary Clinton said on the night of the protests, “Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people.”[28] In other words: “We continue to support tyranny and dictatorship over democracy and liberation.” So what else is new?

Egyptian Protest, 25 January 2011

According to some estimates, as many as 50,000 protesters turned out in Cairo, Alexandria, Suez and other Egyptian cities.[29] The protests were met with the usual brutality: beating protesters, firing tear gas and using water cannons to attempt to disperse the protesters. As images and videos started emerging out of Egypt, “television footage showed demonstrators chasing police down side streets. One protester climbed into a fire engine and drove it away.”[30] Late on the night of the protests, rumours and unconfirmed reports were spreading that the first lady of Egypt, Suzanne Mubarak, may have fled Egypt to London, following on the heels of rumours that Mubarak’s son, and presumed successor, had also fled to London.[31]

Are We Headed for a Global Revolution?

During the first phase of the global economic crisis in December of 2008, the IMF warned governments of the prospect of “violent unrest on the streets.” The head of the IMF warned that, “violent protests could break out in countries worldwide if the financial system was not restructured to benefit everyone rather than a small elite.”[32]

In January of 2009, Obama’s then-Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the greatest threat to the National Security of the U.S. was not terrorism, but the global economic crisis:

I’d like to begin with the global economic crisis, because it already looms as the most serious one in decades, if not in centuries … Economic crises increase the risk of regime-threatening instability if they are prolonged for a one- or two-year period… And instability can loosen the fragile hold that many developing countries have on law and order, which can spill out in dangerous ways into the international community.[33]

In 2007, a British Defence Ministry report was released assessing global trends in the world over the next 30 years. In assessing “Global Inequality”, the report stated that over the next 30 years:

[T]he gap between rich and poor will probably increase and absolute poverty will remain a global challenge… Disparities in wealth and advantage will therefore become more obvious, with their associated grievances and resentments, even among the growing numbers of people who are likely to be materially more prosperous than their parents and grandparents.  Absolute poverty and comparative disadvantage will fuel perceptions of injustice among those whose expectations are not met, increasing tension and instability, both within and between societies and resulting in expressions of violence such as disorder, criminality, terrorism and insurgency. They may also lead to the resurgence of not only anti-capitalist ideologies, possibly linked to religious, anarchist or nihilist movements, but also to populism and the revival of Marxism.[34]

Further, the report warned of the dangers to the established powers of a revolution emerging from the disgruntled middle classes:

The middle classes could become a revolutionary class, taking the role envisaged for the proletariat by Marx.  The globalization of labour markets and reducing levels of national welfare provision and employment could reduce peoples’ attachment to particular states.  The growing gap between themselves and a small number of highly visible super-rich individuals might fuel disillusion with meritocracy, while the growing urban under-classes are likely to pose an increasing threat to social order and stability, as the burden of acquired debt and the failure of pension provision begins to bite.  Faced by these twin challenges, the world’s middle-classes might unite, using access to knowledge, resources and skills to shape transnational processes in their own class interest.[35]

We have now reached the point where the global economic crisis has continued beyond the two-year mark. The social repercussions are starting to be felt – globally – as a result of the crisis and the coordinated responses to it. Since the global economic crisis hit the ‘Third World’ the hardest, the social and political ramifications will be felt there first. In the context of the current record-breaking hikes in the cost of food, food riots will spread around the world as they did in 2007 and 2008, just prior to the outbreak of the economic crisis. This time, however, things are much worse economically, much more desperate socially, and much more oppressive politically.

This rising discontent will spread from the developing world to the comfort of our own homes in the West. Once the harsh realization sets in that the economy is not in ‘recovery,’ but rather in a Depression, and once our governments in the West continue on their path of closing down the democratic façade and continue dismantling rights and freedoms, increasing surveillance and ‘control,’ while pushing increasingly militaristic and war-mongering foreign policies around the world (mostly in an effort to quell or crush the global awakening being experienced around the world), we in the West will come to realize that ‘We are all Tunisians.’

In 1967, Martin Luther King, Jr., said in his famous speech “Beyond Vietnam”:

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a “thing-oriented” society to a “person-oriented” society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.[36]

This was Part 1 of “North Africa and the Global Political Awakening,” focusing on the emergence of the protest movements primarily in North Africa and the Arab world, but placing it in the context of a wider ‘Global Awakening.’
Part 2 will focus on the West’s reaction to the ‘Awakening’ in this region; namely, the two-pronged strategy of supporting oppressive regimes while promoting “democratization” in a grand new project of “democratic imperialism.”

Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).  He is co-editor, with Michel Chossudovsky, of the recent book, “The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century,” available to order at Globalresearch.ca. He is currently working on a forthcoming book on ’Global Government’.

Notes

[1]        Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Global Political Awakening. The New York Times: December 16, 2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/opinion/16iht-YEbrzezinski.1.18730411.html; “Major Foreign Policy Challenges for the Next US President,” International Affairs, 85: 1, (2009); The Dilemma of the Last Sovereign. The American Interest Magazine, Autumn 2005: http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=56; The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership. Speech at the Carnegie Council: March 25, 2004: http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/4424.html; America’s Geopolitical Dilemmas. Speech at the Canadian International Council and Montreal Council on Foreign Relations: April 23, 2010: http://www.onlinecic.org/resourcece/multimedia/americasgeopoliticaldilemmas

[2]        Embassy Tunis, TROUBLED TUNISIA:  WHAT SHOULD WE DO?, WikiLeaks Cables, 17 July 2009: http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/07/09TUNIS492.html

[3]        Mona Eltahawy, Tunisia’s Jasmine Revolution, The Washington Post, 15 January 2011: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/14/AR2011011405084.html

[4]        Eileen Byrne, Protesters make the case for peaceful change, The Financial Times, 15 January 2011: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/82293e38-20ae-11e0-a877-00144feab49a.html#axzz1C08RDtxu

[5]        Marc Lynch, Tunisia and the New Arab Media Space, Foreign Policy, 15 January 2011: http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/15/tunisia_and_the_new_arab_media_space

[6]        Jillian York, Activist crackdown: Tunisia vs Iran, Al-Jazeera, 9 January 2011: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/01/20111981222719974.html

[7]        Steven Cook, The Last Days of Ben Ali? The Council on Foreign Relations, 6 January 2011: http://blogs.cfr.org/cook/2011/01/06/the-last-days-of-ben-ali/

[8]        Angelique Chrisafis, Sarkozy admits France made mistakes over Tunisia, The Guardian, 24 January 2011: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/24/nicolas-sarkozy-tunisia-protests

[9]        Hillary Rodham Clinton, Interview With Taher Barake of Al Arabiya, U.S. Department of State, 11 January 2011: http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/01/154295.htm

[10]      Algeria set for crisis talks, Al-Jazeera, 8 January 2011: http://aljazeera.co.uk/news/africa/2011/01/2011187476735721.html

[11]      Alexandra Sandels, JORDAN: Thousands of demonstrators protest food prices, denounce government, Los Angeles Times Blog, 15 January 2011: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2011/01/jordan-protests-food-prices-muslim-brotherhood-tunisia-strike-thousands-government.html

[12]      AP, Thousands demand ouster of Yemen’s president, Associated Press, 22 January 2011: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g3b2emEy39Bn52Z_haypKxNPGMSw?docId=d324160638a74e84b874baeada16bb4c

[13]      Abigail Fielding-Smith, North-south divide strains Yemen union, The Financial Times, 12 January 2011: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c7c59322-1e80-11e0-87d2-00144feab49a.html#axzz1C08RDtxu

[14]      EurActiv, ‘Jasmine’ revolt wave reaches Albania, 24 January 2011: http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement/jasmine-revolt-wave-reaches-albania-news-501529

[15]      Clemens Höges, Bernhard Zand and Helene Zuber, Arab Rulers Fear Spread of Democracy Fever, Der Spiegel, 25 January 2011: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,741545,00.html

[16]      Shibley Telhami, Results of Arab Opinion Survey Conducted June 29-July 20, 2010, 5 August 2010: http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2010/0805_arab_opinion_poll_telhami.aspx

[17]      Shibley Telhami, A shift in Arab views of Iran, Los Angeles Times, 14 August 2010: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/14/opinion/la-oe-telhami-arab-opinions-20100814

[18]      Clemens Höges, Bernhard Zand and Helene Zuber, Arab Rulers Fear Spread of Democracy Fever, Der Spiegel, 25 January 2011: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,741545,00.html

[19]      Merav Michaeli, Israel may be on the eve of revolution, Ha’aretz, 17 January 2011: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/israel-may-be-on-the-eve-of-revolution-1.337445

[20]      Ibid.

[21]      Yagil Levy, Israeli NGOs are entrenching the occupation, Ha’aretz, 11 January 2011: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/israeli-ngos-are-entrenching-the-occupation-1.336331?localLinksEnabled=false

[22]      Richard Falk, Ben Ali Tunisia was model US client, Al-Jazeera, 25 January 2011: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/01/201112314530411972.html

[23]      Jack Khoury and Haaretz Service, Two decades of secret Israeli-Palestinian accords leaked to media worldwide, Ha’arets, 23 January 2011: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/two-decades-of-secret-israeli-palestinian-accords-leaked-to-media-worldwide-1.338768

[24]      Haaretz Service and The Associated Press, Hamas urges Palestinian refugees to protest over concessions on right of return, Ha’aretz, 25 January 2011: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-urges-palestinian-refugees-to-protest-over-concessions-on-right-of-return-1.339120

[25]      Alan Greenblatt, Palestinian Papers May Be Blow To Peace Process, NPR, 24 January 2011: http://www.npr.org/2011/01/24/133181412/palestinian-papers-may-cause-blow-to-peace-process?ps=cprs

[26]      Johannes Stern, Egyptian regime fears mass protests, World Socialist Web Site, 15 January 2011: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jan2011/egyp-j15.shtml

[27]      Simon Tisdall, Egypt protests are breaking new ground, The Guardian, 25 January 2011: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/25/egypt-protests

[28]      Ibid.

[29]      MATT BRADLEY, Rioters Jolt Egyptian Regime, The Wall Street Journal, 26 January 2011: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704698004576104112320465414.html

[30]      Catrina Stewart, Violence on the streets of Cairo as unrest grows, The Independent, 26 January 2011: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/violence-on-the-streets-of-cairo-as-unrest-grows-2194484.html

[31]      IBT, Suzanne Mubarak of Egypt has fled to Heathrow airport in London: unconfirmed reports, International Business Times, 25 January 2011: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/104960/20110125/suzanne-mubarak-of-egypt-has-fled-to-heathrow-airport-in-london-unconfirmed-reports.htm

[32]      Angela Balakrishnan, IMF chief issues stark warning on economic crisis. The Guardian: December 18, 2008: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/dec/16/imf-financial-crisis

[33]      Stephen C. Webster, US intel chief: Economic crisis a greater threat than terrorism. Raw Story: February 13, 2009: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/US_intel_chief_Economic_crisis_greater_0213.html

[34]      DCDC, The DCDC Global Strategic Trends Programme, 2007-2036, 3rd ed. The Ministry of Defence, January 2007: page 3

[35]      Ibid, page 81.

[36]      Rev. Martin Luther King, Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence. Speech delivered by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on April 4, 1967, at a meeting of Clergy and Laity Concerned at Riverside Church in New York City: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/058.html Andrew Gavin Marshall is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Andrew Gavin Marshall

READ FULL STORY HERE

Former Haitian dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier has returned to his homeland for the first time since he was ousted in a coup in 1986.

Until the coup, Duvalier, known as “Baby Doc,” had ruled Haiti since the 1971 death of his father, Francois “Papa Doc” Duvalier.  It is not clear why the younger Duvalier returned.

His return comes at a time of political crisis in Haiti following Nov. 28 presidential and legislative elections, whose preliminary results have triggered fraud allegations and protests.

The elections were followed by a cholera epidemic in the Caribbean island nation, which is still recovering from a devastating earthquake a year ago that killed more than 300,000 people.

Duvalier was living in France in a self-imposed exile.

READ FULL STORY

Coming up every Thursday at 8:00 am Pacific * 11:00 am Eastern * 16:00 GMT

PROJECT CENSORED SPEAKS OUT with Mickey Huff and Peter Phillips

Live from Berkeley–Hard hitting News and Public Affairs with rotating hosts Mickey Huff and Peter Phillips of Project Censored on KPFA’s morning show. The mission of Project Censored is to teach students and the public about the role of a free press in a free society – and to tell the News That Didn’t Make the News and Why.

Every Saturday – Anti-War – Progressive Truth Teach-in
Coming up at 9:00am Pacific * 12 noon Eastern * 17:00 GMT
Will be archived here after the broadcast by Monday.


Remembering “Granny D – and her fight to get money out of politics.
Granny D. was best known for walking, in her 90th year, from Los Angeles to Washington DC to tell those she met along the way that there is a way to restore democracy by removing the privilege of money. Among the many proposals for campaign finance reform that she pursued, one national piece of legislation was then under debate, the McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act – and she is widely credited for galvanizing the public support that helped pass that Act in 2002.

From a TUC Radio Presentation.

The Anti-war Progressive Teach-in broaches upon some of the most highly charged subjects of our day—War & Peace, national healthcare, womens rights, human rights, civil rights, torture, vets against the war, freedom, democracy, protest, demonstrations, etc. We scour the world to find and gather debates and presentations that are extremely informative and educational. Related subjects are also discussed. It provides key information for the uninitiated and the initiated alike.

Coming up Tuesday Nov 3 at 5 pm Pacific * 8 pm Eastern * 00:00 GMT
This event has already broadcasted. Watch the archive below or other programs on Free Speech TV.

When watching the TV live coverage above, be sure to turn off your radio–See LOOK arrow at upper right. Will be simulcast on the radio too.

All eyes are on the mid-term elections. What’s at stake for progressives? What will your COUNTRY look like on November 3rd? Tune into Free Speech TV’s live election coverage above starting at 8pm eastern time. Thom Hartmann is co-hosting from Washington DC along with Amy Goodman and Laura Flanders in New York, and David Sirota and Gloria Neal from the Free Speech TV headquarters in Denver. Free Speech TV is the nation’s only independent national television network. That means they’re not owned by a giant conglomerate corporation. After you vote, turn on the stream above to watch Thom Hartmann, Amy Goodman, The Nation Magazine, Mother Jones for progressive coverage you won’t find anyplace else, starting at 8pm eastern time, 5pm Pacific, 00:00 GMT Wed.

Coming up Tuesday at 9:00 am Pacific * 12:00 Noon Eastern * 16:00 GMT
Will be archived here after the broadcast by Tuesday evening.

LIVE — “THE KEVIN BARRETT SHOW”

Email your questions or comments now.

Mickey Huff is lead editor of Censored 2011: The Top 25 Censored Stories of 2009-2010. This is the best Censored yet, featuring a terrific selection of critically important stories that the mainstream media is ignoring, underplaying or distorting…including Increased Tensions with Unresolved 9/11 Issues, David Ray Griffin’s Building What? How SCADs Can Be Hidden in Plain Sight, and Lance deHaven-Smith’s Beyond Conspiracy Theory: Patterns of High Crime in American Government.

The Kevin Barrett Show is independently produced and hosted by Kevin Barrett and these shows are externally produced content. All externally produced content broadcast on No Lies Radio is the sole responsibility of the program-content producer and is not the responsibility of NoLiesRadio.org. Any questions or concerns should be directed to the content producer.

Every Saturday – Anti-War – Progressive Truth Teach-in
Coming up at 9:00am Pacific * 12 noon Eastern * 16:00 GMT
Will be archived here after the broadcast by Monday.


Censored 2011 — Mickey Huff & Peter Phillips
A discussion and overview of the new Project Censored book with an in-depth look at several of the twenty-five most censored news stories of the past year, including “Global Plans To Replace the Dollar”, “US DOD Is the Worst Polluter on the Planet”, “War Crimes of General Stanley McCrystal”, “Increased Tensions With Unresolved 9/11 Issues” among other stories. From a Guns & Butter Presentation.

The Anti-war Progressive Teachin broaches upon some of the most highly charged subjects of our day—War & Peace, national healthcare, womens rights, human rights, civil rights, torture, vets against the war, freedom, democracy, protest, demonstrations, etc. We scour the world to find and gather debates and presentations that are extremely informative and educational. Related subjects are also discussed. It provides key information for the uninitiated and the initiated alike.

Don’t Miss our Saturday – Economic Collapse Truth Teach-in Marathon
11am Pacific * 2pm Eastern * 18:00 GMT – Saturday
Will be archived here after the broadcast by Monday.


Coming up Saturday –
ONE KEY ECONOMIC COLLAPSE TRUTH Revelation
Key information for the uninitiated and the initiated alike.

Corporate Power in Elections: The Citizens United Supreme Court Decision

Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, (2010), was a landmark decision by the US Supreme Court holding that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment. Skaggs discussses the likely impact of corporate and special interest money on judicial elections as a result of the Citizens United decision including its impact on eroding confidence in the judicial system. Manski and Grave organized a demonstration to help start a movement to amend the Constitution so that rights granted to indivuals do not apply
to corporations. Speakers: Adam Skaggs, Counsel in the Democracy Program,Brennan Center for Justice, NYU School of Law; Ben Manski, executive director of Liberty Tree ; Lisa Graves, exec. dir., Center for Media and Democracy. A Building Bridges Presentation.

The Economic Collapse Teach-in encompases upon some of the most highly controversial an crucial subjects of our day—the collapsing economy, the Federal Reserve, the Banks, Wall Street, financial fraud, forclosures, homelessness, unemployment, workers rights, unions, trade agreements, etc. We scour the world to find and gather debates and presentations that are extremely informative and educational. Related subjects are also discussed. It provides key information for the uninitiated and the initiated alike.

2 October 2010 From Caracas (Venezuela) Tools Print Send Countries Venezuela NGO National Endowment for Democracy

Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, talks to the press after casting his vote in a polling station west of Caracas, Venezuela, on 26 September 2010. Photo: EPA/Harold Escalona President Hugo Chavez’s party, PSUV, achieved a landslide victory this past Sunday, September 26 in the nation’s legislative elections, winning 98 seats out of 165 in the parliament. The coalition of opposition parties, grouped under the Democratic Unity Roundtable (MUD), won 65 seats, while a third party, PPT, took two. On a national level, the PSUV won in 56 out of 87 circuits, and 18 states out of 24, including the capital district, Caracas. PSUV also won 7 seats on the Latin American Parliament (Parlatino), while MUD took five. Out of the votes tallied nationally 5,422,040 went to PSUV and 5,320,175 were for MUD parties. In all scenarios, PSUV won. It’s an impressive achievement for a political party formed just three years ago, and demonstrates PSUV is the primary political force in the country. With 98 deputies in the National Assembly, PSUV has an absolute majority, followed in second place by opposition party Accion Democratica (AD), which won 22 seats. The other 43 seats in parliament are divided between 9 different political parties. But despite the victory of PSUV in the elections, some key areas were lost to opposition forces, such as in the state of Anzoategui, a solid Chavez-supporting region. Opposition sweeps in the states of Tachira and Zulia, while not suprising, merit analysis. Internal Errors This year was one of the most difficult for the Chavez administration since it came to power in 1999. Electrical energy problems caused by a severe drought during the first semester of the year almost plummeted the nation into collapse. If the government hadn’t implemented a nationwide electricity-rationing plan, the situation would have been unbearable. Nonetheless, entire regions in Venezuela were without regular electricity and water service for months, and this had a major impact on the daily lives of Venezuelans. Even though the principal cause of the energy problem was not the government’s fault, Chavez still took the blame. The global financial crisis had its impact on Venezuela, forcing oil prices to drop and the country’s budget to decrease. Eleven Venezuelan banks were intervened by the state to save customer savings and prevent a bad situation from becoming even worse. The majority of these private banks were either nationalized or liquidated, some for corruption or financial irregularities. If the Chavez administration hadn’t intervened, millions of Venezuelans would have lost all their savings and the social crisis would have been unimaginable. Inflation and speculation encouraged by private enterprise also had a major effect on the daily lives of Venezuelans. Prices of basic consumer products skyrocketed to unaffordable rates. If the state hadn’t expropriated several chains of supermarkets involved in speculation and turned them into a nationwide chain of state-run stores selling products at affordable and accessible prices, millions of Venezuelans would have been without basic food supplies. But the problems of speculation and inflation persist, and instead of recognizing the partial responsibility of private enterprise sabotaging the economy, and consumers willingly paying hiked up prices, the media and others blame Chavez. Despite the government’s efforts to solve these difficult and complex problems, the manipuation perpetuated through mass media, nationally and internationally, ignored the reality and exaggerated the negative, influencing voters’ decisions at the polls. There have also been some very real problems this year, such as the discovery of several tons of decomposed food items in containers owned by the state food program, PDVAL. Despite an investigation into the matter and the detention of those involved, the media exploited the incident to pin corruption and inefficiency on the government. On a regional level, numerous elected officials have failed to follow through on key policies. Others have been consumed by corruption, bureaucracy or incompetence, ignoring the constituents who elected them and causing people to feel abandoned, betrayed and forgotten. A ferocious international media campaign against the Chavez administration has attempted to link the government with terrorism, drug trafficking, authoritarianism and human rights violations, with little, if any, alternative viewpoints. And nationally, the majority-owned private media ran fear campaigns about communism, corruption and dictatorships, in the style of US Cold War propaganda. This context heavily influenced the elections last Sunday and the decisions of voters. The miracle may be not that the opposition won 65 seats, but rather that the PSUV achieved 98. The sound support for President Chavez and his policies demonstrated through this vote evidences a majority in the country still backs his Bolivarian Revolution, despite imperfections, inefficiencies and failures. External Factors Another important factor influencing these elections was the multimillion-dollar support the opposition campaign received from US agencies, such as USAID, National Endowment for Democracy (NED), International Republican Institute (IRI) and National Democratic Institute (NDI). These agencies, backing the opposition to Chavez for years, achieved a major result; their most loyal agents won top seats in parliament. During the past eight years, US agencies have been working hard to strengthen opposition forces and help them return to power in Venezuela. The result of Sunday’s elections is their most important victory to date. Efforts backed by US agencies to destabilize Venezuela and force Chavez’s removal from power have not succeeded since the 2002 coup d’etat. Since then, economic sabotages and numerous electoral interventions had failed to produce favorable results for the opposition. 2010 The key strategic aid and millions in campaign funding from US and other international agencies – in clear violation of Venezuelan law – helped bring opposition forces together under the MUD coalition and select candidates most likely to win. IRI and NDI set up “campaign schools” and workshops to train candidates and help them develop the right messages to influence voters. US funding helped design campaign propaganda, most of it directed against Chavez. Almost none of the opposition candidates presented alternative policies to attract voters. Their entire campaign was about the threat of “communism” if Chavez stays in power. The political parties that won the most votes in the elections were Primero Justicia, Un Nuevo Tiempo (UNT), AD and Copei – including winning entire states, such as Zulia (UNT) and Tachira (Copei), both strategic regions bordering Colombia of key interest to US policy. Two of these parties, Primero Justicia and UNT were created under 10 years ago with US funding and strategic advice. Their work with them over the decade has finally paid off. Maria Corina Machado The funding and advising invested in one particular candidate, Maria Corina Machado, helped her get the most votes of any candidate on a national level. Machado, founder of the US-funded opposition group Sumate, was the only Venezuelan to be publicly received by President George W. Bush in the White House (with a photo op) throughout his presidency. The discourse of “communism vs. capitalism” was the pillar of Machado’s campaign, and her baby-kissing, plastered-smile style was clearly made in USA. The brutal international media campaign against the Chavez government, primarily in CNN, FOX News, the New York Times and the Washington Post also had a heavy impact on the elections. For weeks, all the news about Venezuela was related to unsubstantiated claims linking Chavez to “terrorism”, “drug trafficking” and even “nuclear weapons”. The US government is pleased. They never thought the opposition would win a majority in the National Assembly, but they did believe that PSUV could achieve a solid two-thirds majority. Their objective was to impede Chavez supporters from achieving the comfortable two-thirds majority, which would have neutralized opposition forces in parliament and rendered them powerless. They won. Although the PSUV has an absolute majority, the presence of US-funded and backed deputies in Venezuela’s legislative body will cause unrest. They won’t be able to roll back any of Chavez’s policies, but they will be able to use this platform to strengthen ties with external allies and prepare their strategy for the 2012 presidential elections. US interference triumphed this time around in Venezuela. The most loyal agents of the US government are now in key positions in Venezuela, where they can create obstacles and challenges for the Chavez government. Now these individuals, many of whom participated in the 2002 coup and subsequent destabilization attempts, can continue with their anti-Chavez agenda, acting with the legitimacy of being representatives of Venezuela’s National Assembly. Share this Eva Golinger Is a Venezuelan-American attorney based in New York. She is currently writing a book about the results of her investigation of U.S. intervention in Venezuela. See also her website This author’s articles To send a message

READ FULL STORY HERE

Every Saturday – Anti-War – Progressive Truth Teach-in
Coming up at 9:00am Pacific * 12 noon Eastern * 16:00 GMT
Will be archived here after the broadcast by Monday.


Did O’Donnell really win Delaware?
Brad Friedman of bradblog.com troubleshoots Voting Systems. We go over problems with voting machines and systems in various states that showed up during Congressional primary races. Did O’Donnell really win Delaware? Not if you read the absentee ballots as meaningful. Much more as we approach Nov. 2nd, 2010. A Talk Nation Radio Presentation.

The Anti-war Progressive Teachin broaches upon some of the most highly charged subjects of our day—War & Peace, national healthcare, womens rights, human rights, civil rights, torture, vets against the war, freedom, democracy, protest, demonstrations, etc. We scour the world to find and gather debates and presentations that are extremely informative and educational. Related subjects are also discussed. It provides key information for the uninitiated and the initiated alike.

READ FULL STORY HERE

Coming up today and every Monday at 7:00 pm Pacific * 10:00 pm Eastern * 02:00 GMT
Will be archived here after the broadcast by Tuesday.

GUNS AND BUTTER with Bonnie Faulkner
Vietnam, Star Wars and 9/11 — Lt. Col. Bob Bowman
Dr. Bowman discusses his US Air Force experiences in Vietnam in 1969-70; as Director of Advanced Space Programs Development in the Ford and Carter administrations (Star Wars); the 1982 Defense Guidance Document; his public opposition to the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) better know as Star Wars during the Ronald Reagan administration; his take on the events of September 11, 2001; and wars of aggression.

Special Report
The Story of Obama: All in The Company (Part I)

by Wayne Madsen SEE PART 2 HERE*

20 August 2010 From Washington D.C. (USA) Tools Print Send Countries Kenya Themes AfriCom: Control of Africa Biographies Barack Obama

In 1983-84, Barack Obama worked as Editor at Business Internation Corporation, a Business International Corporation, a known CIA front company. President Obama’s own work in 1983 for Business International Corporation, a CIA front that conducted seminars with the world’s most powerful leaders and used journalists as agents abroad, dovetails with CIA espionage activities conducted by his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham in 1960s post-coup Indonesia on behalf of a number of CIA front operations, including the East-West Center at the University of Hawaii, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Ford Foundation. Dunham met and married Lolo Soetoro, Obama’s stepfather, at the East-West Center in 1965. Soetoro was recalled to Indonesia in 1965 to serve as a senior army officer and assist General Suharto and the CIA in the bloody overthrow of President Sukarno. Barack Obama, Sr., who met Dunham in 1959 in a Russian language class at the University of Hawaii, had been part of what was described as an airlift of 280 East African students to the United States to attend various colleges — merely “aided” by a grant from the Joseph P. Kennedy Foundation, according to a September 12, 1960, Reuters report from London. The airlift was a CIA operation to train and indoctrinate future agents of influence in Africa, which was becoming a battleground between the United States and the Soviet Union and China for influence among newly-independent and soon-to-be independent countries on the continent. The airlift was condemned by the deputy leader of the opposition Kenyan African Democratic Union (KADU) as favoring certain tribes — the majority Kikuyus and minority Luos — over other tribes to favor the Kenyan African National Union (KANU), whose leader was Tom Mboya, the Kenyan nationalist and labor leader who selected Obama, Sr. for a scholarship at the University of Hawaii. Obama, Sr., who was already married with an infant son and pregnant wife in Kenya, married Dunham on Maui on February 2, 1961 and was also the university’s first African student. Dunham was three month’s pregnant with Barack Obama, Jr. at the time of her marriage to Obama, Sr. KADU deputy leader Masinda Muliro, according to Reuters, said KADU would send a delegation to the United States to investigate Kenyan students who received “gifts” from the Americans and “ensure that further gifts to Kenyan students are administered by people genuinely interested in Kenya’s development.’” The CIA allegedly recruited Tom M’Boya in a heavily funded “selective liberation” programme to isolate Kenya’s founding President Jomo Kenyatta, whom the American spy agency labelled as “unsafe.” Mboya received a $100,000 grant for the airlift from the Kennedy Foundation after he turned down the same offer from the U.S. State Department, obviously concerned that direct U.S. assistance would look suspicious to pro-Communist Kenyan politicians who suspected Mboya of having CIA ties. The Airlift Africa project was underwritten by the Kennedy Foundation and the African-American Students Foundation. Obama, Sr. was not on the first airlift but a subsequent one. The airlift, organized by Mboya in 1959, included students from Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika, Zanzibar, Northern Rhodesia, Southern Rhodesia, and Nyasaland. Reuters also reported that Muliro charged that Africans were “disturbed and embittered” by the airlift of the selected students. Muliro “stated that “preferences were shown to two major tribes [Kikuyu and Luo] and many U.S.-bound students had failed preliminary and common entrance examinations, while some of those left behind held first-class certificates.” CIA-airlifted to Hawaii, Barack Obama Sr., with leis, stands with Stanley Dunham, President Obama’s grandfather, on his right. Obama, Sr. was a friend of Mboya and a fellow Luo. After Mboya was assassinated in 1969, Obama, Sr. testified at the trial of his alleged assassin. Obama, Sr. claimed he was the target of a hit-and-run assassination attempt after his testimony. Obama, Sr., who left Hawaii for Harvard in 1962, divorced Dunham in 1964. Obama, Sr. married a fellow Harvard student, Ruth Niedesand, a Jewish-American woman, who moved with him to Kenya and had two sons. They were later divorced. Obama, Sr. worked for the Kenyan Finance and Transport ministries as well as an oil firm. Obama, Sr. died in a 1982 car crash and his funeral was attended by leading Kenyan politicians, including future Foreign Minister Robert Ouko, who was murdered in 1990. CIA files indicate that Mboya was an important agent-of-influence for the CIA, not only in Kenya but in all of Africa. A formerly Secret CIA Current Intelligence Weekly Summary, dated November 19, 1959, states that Mboya served as a check on extremists at the second All-African People’s Conference (AAPC) in Tunis. The report states that “serious friction developed between Ghana’s Prime Minister Kwame Nkrumah and Kenyan nationalist Tom Mboya who cooperated effectively last December to check extremists at the AAPC’s first meeting in Accra.” The term “cooperated effectively” appears to indicate that Mboya was cooperating with the CIA, which filed the report from field operatives in Accra and Tunis. While “cooperating” with the CIA in Accra and Tunis, Mboya selected the father of the president of the United States to receive a scholarship and be airlifted to the University of Hawaii where he met and married President Obama’s mother. An earlier CIA Current Intelligence Weekly Summary, secret, and dated April 3, 1958, states that Mboya “still appears to be the most promising of the African leaders.” Another CIA weekly summary, secret and dated December 18, 1958, calls Mboya the Kenyan nationalist an “able and dynamic young chairman” of the People’s Convention party who was viewed as an opponent of “extremists” like Nkrumah, supported by “Sino-Soviet representatives.” In a formerly Secret CIA report on the All-Africa Peoples Conference in 1961, dated November 1, 1961, Mboya’s conservatism, along with that of Taleb Slim of Tunisia, are contrasted to the leftist policies of Nkrumah and others. Pro-communists who were elected to the AAPC’s steering committee at the March 1961 Cairo conference, attended by Mboya, are identified in the report as Abdoulaye Diallo, AAPC Secretary General, of Senegal; Ahmed Bourmendjel of Algeria; Mario de Andrade of Angola; Ntau Mokhele of Basutoland; Kingue Abel of Cameroun; Antoine Kiwewa of Congo (Leopoldville); Kojo Botsio of Ghana; Ismail Toure of Guinea; T. O. Dosomu Johnson of Liberia; Modibo Diallo of Mali; Mahjoub Ben Seddik of Morocco; Djibo Bakari of Niger; Tunji Otegbeya of Nigeria; Kanyama Chiume of Nyasaland; Ali Abdullahi of Somalia; Tennyson Makiwane of South Africa, and Mohamed Fouad Galal of the United Arab Republic. The only attendees in Cairo who were given a clean bill of health by the CIA were Mboya, who appears to have been a snitch for the agency, and Joshua Nkomo of Southern Rhodesia, B. Munanka of Tanganyika, Abdel Magid Shaker of Tunisia, and John Kakonge of Uganda. Nkrumah would eventually be overthrown in a 1966 CIA-backed coup while he was on a state visit to China and North Vietnam. The CIA overthrow of Nkrumah followed by one year the agency’s overthrow of Sukarno, another coup that was connected to President Obama’s family on his mother’s side. There are suspicions that Mboya was assassinated in 1969 by Chinese agents working with anti-Mboya factions in the government of Kenyan President Jomo Kenyatta in order to eliminate a pro-U.S. leading political leader in Africa. Upon Mboya’s death, every embassy in Nairobi flew its flag at half-mast except for one, the embassy of the People’s Republic of China. Jomo Kenyatta, first President of Kenya. Mboya’s influence in the Kenyatta government would continue long after his death and while Obama, Sr. was still alive. In 1975, after the assassination of KANU politician Josiah Kariuki, a socialist who helped start KANU, along with Mboya and Obama, Sr., Kenyatta dismissed three rebellious cabinet ministers who “all had personal ties to either Kariuki or Tom Mboya.” This information is contained in CIA Staff Notes on the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia, formerly Top Secret Umbra, Handle via COMINT Channels, dated June 24, 1975. The intelligence in the report, based on its classification, indicate the information was derived from National Security Agency intercepts in Kenya. No one was ever charged in the assassination of Kariuki. The intecepts of Mboya’s and Kariuki’s associates are an indication that the NSA and CIA also maintain intercepts on Barack Obama, Sr., who, as a non-U.S. person, would have been lawfully subject at the time to intercepts carried out by NSA and Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). (To be continued) == Article concerning Barack Obama’s own meddling in Kenya’s domestic affairs: “Behind the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize”, by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network, 19 October 2009. Share this Wayne Madsen Investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist. His columns have appeared in a wide number of newspapers and journals. Madsen is a regular contributor on Russia Today. He has written The Handbook of Personal Data Protection (London: Macmillan, 1992); Genocide and Covert Operations in Africa 1993-1999 (Edwin Mellen Press, 1999); Jaded Tasks: Big Oil, Black Ops & Brass Plates and Overthrow a Fascist Regime on $15 a Day and co-authored America’s Nightmare: The Presidency of George Bush II (Dandelion, 2003). This author’s articles

READ FULL STORY HERE

Every Saturday – Anti-War – Progressive Truth Teach-in
Coming up at 9:00am Pacific — 12 noon Eastern — 16:00 GMT
Will be archived here after the broadcast by Monday.


Michael Parenti: Ideology and Conspiracy
The right-wing agenda to dismantle social democracy. In this entertaining talk, rich with historic references, Parenti describes the right-wing agenda of dismantling social democracy while calling anybody who describes this as a purposeful strategy a conspiracy theorist. He shows that this strategy began right after World War II but culminates now as powerful segment of right wing media and the GOP have moved so far to the right that they have overshot their popular base. Meanwhile democrats, including Obama, unable or unwilling to formulate the social democratic alternative, still talk of bipartisan approaches.

Parenti is one of the nation’s leading progressive political analysts. After receiving his Ph.D. in political science from Yale Parenti has taught at colleges and universities, in the United States and abroad. Parenti grew up in a conservative, catholic, working class Italian community in New York city. He is a prolific author and an engaging speaker. He serves on the board of judges for Project Censored and is the author of 22 books, among them: Democracy for the Few, Superpatriotism, History as Mystery, and – most recently – God and His Demons. A TUC Radio Production from ‘Understanding Deep Politics Conference’, Santa Cruz, CA 2010

The Anti-war Progressive Teachin broaches upon some of the most highly charged subjects of our day—War & Peace, national healthcare, womens rights, human rights, civil rights, torture, vets against the war, freedom, democracy, protest, demonstrations, etc. We scour the world to find and gather debates and presentations that are extremely informative and educational. Related subjects are also discussed. It provides key information for the uninitiated and the initiated alike.

Every Saturday – Anti-War – Progressive Truth Teach-in
Coming up at 9:00am Pacific — 12 noon Eastern — 16:00 GMT
Will be archived here after the broadcast by Monday.


Michael Parenti: VOTING in the USA
How the vote was won and lost. If the right to vote is taken as a measure of a vibrant democracy, the United States came off to a bad start. Dr. Michael Parenti says that the most interesting list from the period of 1787 is the rather long one of people who were not allowed to vote – and he names all of them. He then discusses the ways in which – most recently – votes get rigged and elections stolen. See his article on the stolen Presidential Elections here.

Parenti grew up in a conservative, catholic, working class Italian community in New York city. He is a prolific author and an engaging speaker. He serves on the board of judges for Project Censored and is the author of 22 books, among them: Democracy for the Few, Superpatriotism, History as Mystery, and – most recently – God and His Demons. From A TUC Radio Production.

The Anti-war Progressive Teachin broaches upon some of the most highly charged subjects of our day—War & Peace, national healthcare, womens rights, human rights, civil rights, torture, vets against the war, freedom, democracy, protest, demonstrations, etc. We scour the world to find and gather debates and presentations that are extremely informative and educational. Related subjects are also discussed. It provides key information for the uninitiated and the initiated alike.

READ FULL STORY HERE

Coming up today and every Monday at 7:00 pm Pacific – 10:00 pm Eastern – 02:00 GMT

GUNS AND BUTTER with Bonnie Faulkner
The American Media Empire of Managed News — Dr. Peter Phillips
Propaganda model post 9/11 becomes deliberate disinformation; consolidation of media and public relations groups; prison torture across the US; domestic secret detention centers; Operation FALCON mass arrests; suspension of habeas corpus by the Chief Executive; US and NATO as protectors of global capital; structure of inequality maintained by global capital and military empire worldwide; repression that addresses us all; the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights.

Every Saturday – Anti-War – Progressive Truth Teach-in
Coming up at 9:00am Pacific * 12 noon Eastern * 16:00 GMT
Will be archived here after the broadcast by Monday.


Michael Parenti: Civil Liberties in the 21st Century
In his November 2009 lecture at the University of Hartford Dr. Michael Parenti answers intriguing questions about democracy. Is US democracy a result of capitalism as some claim – or does it exist – such as it is – in spite of the current economic system. And did the founding fathers even envision a democratic system.

Parenti grew up in a conservative, catholic, working class Italian community in New York city. He is a prolific author and an engaging speaker. He serves on the board of judges for Project Censored and is the author of 22 books, among them: Democracy for the Few, Superpatriotism, History as Mystery, and – most recently – God and His Demons. From A TUC Radio Production.

The Anti-war Progressive Teachin broaches upon some of the most highly charged subjects of our day—War & Peace, national healthcare, womens rights, human rights, civil rights, torture, vets against the war, freedom, democracy, protest, demonstrations, etc. We scour the world to find and gather debates and presentations that are extremely informative and educational. Related subjects are also discussed. It provides key information for the uninitiated and the initiated alike.

Coming up every Saturday at 1:00 pm Pacific * 04:00 pm Eastern * 20:00 GMT


National Safety Raider — Ralph Nader
Cindy interviews, live on her microphone, awesome and sagacious, once Green Party, and once independent POTUS (President Of the United States) Candidate, our most famous National Safety Raider: the one-and-only, most honorable, Ralph Nader! All rhetoric aside, folks – Soapbox is thrilled and deeply honored to have such a distinguished guest.

This interview is from November 29, 2009, but still highly relevant today.
Cindy’s website is here.

Coming up today and every Monday at 7:00 pm Pacific – 10:00 pm Eastern – 02:00 GMT

GUNS AND BUTTER with Bonnie Faulkner
The Process By Which the US Constitution Has Already Been Superseded — Peter Dale Scott
Continuity of Government Planning.
The Doomsday Project; Executive Order 12656 of 1988; National Security Presidential Directive 51 and SPD 51 of 2007; the National Emergencies Act; National Security Directive 55 of September 14, 1982 by President Ronald Reagan; counterinsurgency planning called Cable Splicer; the National Preparedness Review of May 2001; Northcom.

READ FULL STORY HERE

READ FULL STORY HERE

June 01, 2010 — Secretive and elite – the Bilderberg group, which unites some of the world’s most powerful people, has been meeting behind closed doors for decades. An investigative journalist Daniel Estulin has just revealed to the European Parliament all he claims to have discovered about the ‘Bilderbergers’, and expects the results of his findings to have the ‘effect of an atomic bomb’

Source www.youtube.com

SOURCE: IHH Insani Yardim Vakfi

# And that the boats are being hauled into Haifa and not Ashdod so that journalists are not there 7 minutes ago via web
# Our Israeli attorney in Haifa has said that ten people have been murdered 10 minutes ago via web
# Don’t know fate of the other boats
# At about 4:30 am, Israeli commandos dropped from helicopter onto deck of Turkish ship, immediately opened fire on unarmed civilians. 20 minutes ago via web
# IDF commandoes descending from an helicopter on the IHH turkish ship. The ship is surrounded by Navy vessels. #Flotilla 7 minutes ago via web

me: where are you? Are you there?

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article, video, radio program, audio segment, facebook posting or facebook comment, twitter posting, any comment, or any material herein are the sole responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the NoLiesRadio.org. The contents of same are of sole responsibility of the author(s). NoLiesRadio.org will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in same. Share ]]> http://noliesradio.org/archives/16925/feed 0 http://noliesradio.org/archives/15433 http://noliesradio.org/archives/15433#comments Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:41:25 +0000 noliesradio http://noliesradio.org/?p=15433 This show was broadcast April 24, 2010.
It is now archived here — Use Player

Every Saturday – Anti-War – Progressive Truth Teach-in
Coming up at 9:00am Pacific — 12 noon Eastern — 16:00 GMT
Will be archived here after the broadcast by Monday.

Live from Berkeley, Calif: Truth Emergency International
LIVE FROM BERKELEY: An evening with Project Censored — Peter Phillips and Mickey Huff
THE EMPIRE, POWER, AND PROPAGANDA LECTURE SERIES:
An evening with Project Censored. Please join the co-editors of Censored 2010, Peter Phillips and Mickey Huff, for a public talk and discussion on the ongoing Truth Emergency and media censorship in the US.

From Project Censored article “State Crimes Against Democracy”
by Peter Phillips and Mickey Huff:
“New research in the journal American Behavioral Scientist (Sage publications, February 2010) addresses the concept of ‘State Crimes Against Democracy (SCAD). Professor Lance deHaven-Smith from Florida State University writes that SCADs involve highlevel government officials, often in combination with private interests, that engage in covert activities for political advantages and power. Proven SCADs since World War II include McCarthyism (fabrication of evidence of a communist infiltration), Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (President Johnson and Robert McNamara falsely claimed North Vietnam attacked a US ship), burglary of the office of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist in effort to discredit Ellsberg, the Watergate break-in, Iran-Contra, Florida’s 2000 Election (felon disenfranchisement program), and fixed intelligence on WMDs to justify the Iraq War…Credible scientific evidence brings into question the possibility that some aspects of the events of 9/11 involved State Crimes Against Democracy. Psychologically this is a very hard concept for Americans to even consider. However, ignoring the issue in the context of multiple proven SCADs since World War II seems far more dangerous for democracy than the consequences of future scientific inquiry and transparent, fact-based investigative reporting.”

The Anti-war Progressive Teachin broaches upon some of the most highly charged subjects of our day—War & Peace, national healthcare, womens rights, human rights, civil rights, torture, vets against the war, freedom, democracy, protest, demonstrations, etc. We scour the world to find and gather debates and presentations that are extremely informative and educational. Related subjects are also discussed. It provides key information for the uninitiated and the initiated alike.

This show was a No Lies Radio News Special and was Video-Casted LIVE on April 22, 2010. It is now archived below.

Truth Emergency International:
…. Censorship, Propaganda, and American Empire

THE EMPIRE, POWER, AND PROPAGANDA LECTURE SERIES:
An evening with Project Censored. Please join the co-editors of Censored 2010, Peter Phillips and Mickey Huff, for a public talk and discussion on the ongoing Truth Emergency and media censorship in the US.

From Project Censored article “State Crimes Against Democracy”
by Peter Phillips and Mickey Huff:
“New research in the journal American Behavioral Scientist (Sage publications, February 2010) addresses the concept of ‘State Crimes Against Democracy (SCAD). Professor Lance deHaven-Smith from Florida State University writes that SCADs involve highlevel government officials, often in combination with private interests, that engage in covert activities for political advantages and power. Proven SCADs since World War II include McCarthyism (fabrication of evidence of a communist infiltration), Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (President Johnson and Robert McNamara falsely claimed North Vietnam attacked a US ship), burglary of the office of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist in effort to discredit Ellsberg, the Watergate break-in, Iran-Contra, Florida’s 2000 Election (felon disenfranchisement program), and fixed intelligence on WMDs to justify the Iraq War…Credible scientific evidence brings into question the possibility that some aspects of the events of 9/11 involved State Crimes Against Democracy. Psychologically this is a very hard concept for Americans to even consider. However, ignoring the issue in the context of multiple proven SCADs since World War II seems far more dangerous for democracy than the consequences of future scientific inquiry and transparent, fact-based investigative reporting.”

Coming up Tuesday at 9:00 am Pacific – 12:00 Noon Eastern – 16:00 GMT
Will be archived here after the broadcast by Tuesday evening.

“THE KEVIN BARRETT SHOW”

Was 9/11 a SCAD? History professor Mickey Huff joins me this Tuesday

Email your questions or comments now.

Guest: Mickey Huff, associate professor of history at Diablo Valley College, Director of Project Censored/Media Freedom Foundation, and co-editor of Censored 2010.

The Kevin Barrett Show is independently produced and hosted by Kevin Barrett and these shows are externally produced content. All externally produced content broadcast on No Lies Radio is the sole responsibility of the program-content producer and is not the responsibility of NoLiesRadio.org. Any questions or concerns should be directed to the content producer.

READ FULL STORY HERE

Don’t Miss our Saturday – Economic Collapse Truth Teach-in Marathon
11am Pacific – 2pm Eastern – 19:00 GMT – Saturday
Will be archived here after the broadcast by Monday.


Coming up Saturday –
ONE KEY ECONOMIC COLLAPSE TRUTH Revelation
Key information for the uninitiated and the initiated alike.

In Landmark Campaign Finance Ruling, Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate Campaign Spending
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court rules corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money to elect and defeat candidates. One lawmaker describes it as the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case justifying slavery. We speak with constitutional law professor, Jamin Raskin. [see transcript here--A Democracy Now Production]

The Economic Collapse Teachin encompases upon some of the most highly controversial an crucial subjects of our day—the collapsing economy, the Federal Reserve, the Banks, Wall Street, financial fraud, forclosures, homelessness, unemployment, workers rights, unions, trade agreements, AND MORE. We scour the world to find and gather debates and presentations that are extremely informative and educational. Related subjects are also discussed. It provides key information for the uninitiated and the initiated alike.

Ousted Honduran president Manuel Zelaya

READ FULL STORY HERE

No Fair Election In Honduras Under Military Occupation

As the Honduran election approaches this Sunday, let’s be clear about the conditions under which it is taking place. Human rights abuses are rampant, freedom of speech is under attack, and the election process is in the hands of the very people who perpetrated the coup. Clearly, no free and fair election is possible under the repressive thumb of the military coup that has been in place for five months.

While the 23 nations of the Rio Group from Latin America and the Caribbean have condemned the election and announced they will not recognize its outcome, the Obama administration still insists it will recognize the results — once again isolating the United States from those who are upholding democracy in the hemisphere.

President Obama should join the rest of the world and immediately declare the elections fraudulent and demand the immediate restoration of President Manuel Zelaya, the withdrawal of the Honduran military, and a delay of the election until three months after Zelaya has been full reinstated.

Imagine a “free and fair election” under the conditions in Honduras today (and imagine if this were taking place in the United States):

• The same Honduran military,which perpetrated the June 28 coup forcing President Manuel Zelaya out of the country, and which has brutally occupied the country for five months, physically controls the ballots, the ballot boxes, the computers that tabulate the results, and the dissemination of the outcome.
• The legitimate President of the country is being held captive in the Brazilian Embassy under draconian circumstances, and has denounced the elections as fraudulent.
• The leading opposition candidate, the independent Carlos H. Reyes–who has a real chance of winning a free and fair election–has withdrawn his name from the ballot in protest. Throughout the country, hundreds of candidates for congress and municipal office, including those from the mainstream parties, have announced they are withdrawing from the election. They include the mayor of San Pedro Sula, the nation’s second largest city.
• All three trade union federations, the leading human rights organization, women’s groups, organizations of indigenous and African-descent peoples, the gay and lesbian movement, and the campesino movement–united in the National Front Against the Coup d’Etat–have denounced the election as fraudulent.
• The coup government has made it illegal to advocate not voting.
• Peaceful demonstrations are routinely teargassed. As the Committee of Families of the Disappeared (COFADEH) has documented, dozens of people have been killed, over 600 beaten, and over 3,500 illegally detained, including lawyers who have shown up to secure the release of detainees. Opponents of the coup continue be threatened, illegally arrested, and beaten in their homes.
• The military has recently instructed all mayors in the country to compile a list of persons in their jurisdiction who oppose the coup.
• The two presidential candidates remaining in the election from the traditional parties of the oligarchy, Elvin Santos from the right wing of the Liberal Party, and Porfirio Lobo Sosa from the National Party, both initially supported the coup.

No free and fair election can take place under these circumstances. Only when the legitimate President of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, has been fully restored to office for three months, only when the military has been pushed back into its barracks, and only when civil liberties are completely restored can an orderly transfer of power to a new administration take place. By persuading coup leader Roberto Micheletti to briefly step aside in the week before the election, the U.S. State Department has tried to whitewash the election at the last minute. But that doesn’t change the fact that the Honduran military and the oligarchs, who perpetrated the coup and who have dictated the nation’s politics for decades, are still brutally repressing the people of Honduras.

The vast majority of Hondurans aren’t fooled. After five months of military repression, they know the difference between a fraudulent cover for the continuation of the coup regime, and a truly free and fair election under the rule of law. So does the European Union, the Organization of American States, and the Rio Group. They understand well the dangerous precedent the Honduran coup represents.

President Obama should refuse to recognize the results of the election and bring an end to the embarrassing isolation of the United States from the rest of the world.

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE

While the Honduran people were not seen as being particularly politicized, and US experts had not anticipated a lasting reaction against the coup, the direct opposite has taken place. The population has suddenly arisen, joining activist organisations in a united stance against the putchists. According to Arnold August, this phenomenon is evocative of the popular movements that rattled other states in the region in recent years bringing, without exception, revolutionary leaders to power. In his view, and barring an event that could thwart the mobilization, the retreat of the Honduran putchists is inexorable. But, in any event, US interventionism is once again backfiring against Washington.

5 November 2009 From Montreal (Canada) Tools Print Send All the versions of this article: français Español Countries Honduras Themes SouthCom: Control of Latin America

Juan Barahona On June 28 the military coup d’etat took place. On that very same day the seeds of the National Front Against the Coup were sown. Since then it is developing politically and organizationally on a daily basis alongside with the people, exhibiting courage and determination in the face of repression and assassinations. The Front is not only responsible for huge peaceful demonstrations in the cities, but also organizing thousands of local cells and activities in the cities, towns and countryside, carrying out political education in the process. President Zelaya and his legitimate government are also maturing and radicalizing themselves. It has maintained the governing organization in operation whether in exile or in the Brazilian Embassy. Zelaya himself has visited Washington and many capitals in South America, seeking increased support. He has made two courageous peaceful attempted incursions into his country, by airplane and by ground, succeeding on the third occasion despite the serious dangers. In a situation of negotiations between on the one hand the putschists and on the other hand the legitimate government and its allies in the Front, all this in the context of the presidential elections, what is the Micheletti de facto government attempting to do? Amongst other things, it is trying to divide the resistance forces and weaken the mass movement in the streets in order to gain time and legitimize itself through elections. However, all three forces, firstly the Front and its affiliate social and trade union organizations and followers in the street, secondly the two potential candidates for the presidential elections who are directly linked to the Front and thirdly the Zelaya government, have all further developed their unity with each other. Their combined tactics in this complicated situation constitute one of many examples exhibiting the rapidly growing political maturity and consciousness of all the components forming the resistance. All of these forces, far from succumbing to the usual imperialist tactics of divide and rule, are further unifying themselves. The resistance in the streets, the new political forces and the constitutional Zelaya government all complement each other. From an exclusive October 5 telephone interview with Zelaya by some international media and reported by on-the-spot journalist Giorgio Trucchi, the following are excerpts: “Question: You have agreed to sign the San Jose Arias Plan or Agreement which does not envisage the main demand of the National Front Against the Coup, that is to begin a process to install a Constituent Assembly. Does this imply a concession by you? [The question is related to President Zelaya refraining from promoting the Constituent Assembly during the remainder of his mandate.] Zelaya: The person who is going to sign the Plan is me as the elected representative of the Honduran people. The Plan has two components: my restitution in order to say No to coups d’etats; the Latin American presidents are interested in this so as to feel confident that the sovereignty of the people is going to be respected and that no military, economic and political elite can replace the will of the people. The second component comprises the social processes and reforms and is related to timing….The Constituent [Assembly] is not a power of the President, neither of the de facto regime, nor any other group. It is a faculty of the Honduran people who, through a people’s consultation, can determine when they are going to do it. That is why the signing of the Arias Plan is consistent with my position in relation to the reforms that have to continue….. The decision to organize a Constituent [Assembly] belongs to the people who are sovereign….” [1] In an October 14 interview with Front leader Juan Barahona and as reported by Telesur, in response to the question: “Another point where it will be difficult to reach an agreement is number 3, where it is proposed that President Zelaya concedes the promotion of a Constituent Assembly? Barahona: President Zelaya has already said that he is ready to sign the Agreement of San Jose and renounce the Constituent Assembly during the period that will remain to end his mandate. We are going to respect this position of the President; however, we as the Resistance are never going to renounce the need to push for the Constituent [Assembly]…. There will be no elections if President Zelaya is not restored …. I am very pessimistic [about the negotiations] and I do not have many expectations that it can reach a comprehensive agreement. The putschists are trying [since the beginning of the negotiations] to divide our delegation saying that there exists strong contradictions between the resistance and President Zelaya. We [the resistance] meet daily to refine strategy and seek common positions, but this disinformation campaign indicates that they want to make the dialogue fail and then place the responsibility on our shoulders. They have gone so far as to launch a campaign against myself personally saying that I am very tough [a hardliner] and therefore I am not fit for negotiations. In this sense, it is true that I am tough, because I will never be _ willing to renounce the rights of the people….” [2] In communiqué No. 28 of the National Front, dated October 13, it is stated: “….We withdrew our comrade Juan Barahoma from the so-called Guaymuras dialogue. Our comrade Barahona was acting as the representative of the National Front against the Coup in the delegation of President Zelaya in the said dialogue. The delegation of the coup regime, in a typical act of intransigence to hinder the advance of the negotiation, tried to paralyze the dialogue by refusing to accept that our representative would sign accord No. 3 referring to the installation of the National Constitutional Assembly with reservations, since we wished in that reservation to have it recorded that our Front does not renounce nor will it renounce the struggle for this demand, which is the demand of the Honduran people. Conscious of the fact that this was a manoeuvre to cause a failure of the dialogue using any pretext, since signing with reservations was suggested by them in an earlier session, we decided not to lend ourselves to this and therefore we took this decision, leaving President Zelaya at liberty to substitute another representative that enjoys his trust. In that sense the lawyer Rodil Rivera Rodil was delegated as part of the commission of President Zelaya in substitution for our representative. The preceding signifies that the [National Front] left the Guaymuras dialogue and that we will keep fighting in the street for the demands that we have raised since the 28th of June; the return of constitutional order, the restitution of President Zelaya to his office, and the convening of a Constitutional Assembly. We declare that we respect the decision of our president if he decides to sign the San Jose Accord, even with all its conditions, and we declare that we are in full harmony with him in regard to the demand that the coup perpetrators sign an accord by which they will abandon power, and the office of President of the Republic will be returned to him [Zelaya.]” [3] It was reported on October 19: “In a telephone message to a meeting of the National Front…[on October 18, Zelaya] called on it to keep up the peaceful struggle to restore democratic legality, broken by the June 28 military coup. ‘We will resist until the people obtain victory’… [and] stressed that the struggle will continue until we obtain a country with justice and equity, in a truly participatory democracy. The national directorate of the Front agreed [on October 18] and vowed to continue the peaceful resistance until the return to power of Zelaya and then go on to a national Constituent Assembly….” [4] There are two candidates for the presidential elections who are fully involved in the National Front: César Ham of the Unificación Democrática (UD) party and trade union leader and independent candidate Carlos Reyes. Zelaya called on them both to take a stand against participating in the elections under the existing conditions which would lend legitimacy to the putschist electoral process. [5] In an interview carried out by Giorgio Trucchi in Honduras with popular trade union leader and independent presidential candidate Carlos Reyes, the latter stated, as published on September 30: “…If we the people´s and democratic candidates do not withdraw from this electoral process, we would be endorsing all that scaffolding [built-up by Micheletti] and weaken the resistance…” [6] This position was confirmed on October 15 by one of the Front leaders Rafael Alegría who emphasised that Reyes will not be candidate under the current conditions in order to “…refrain from legitimizing coups d’etats or constitutional breakdowns.…” [7] On October 19, the UD party, the third most important of five political force amongst all tendencies in Honduras, announced that it is withdrawing from the elections taking into account that they are “unconstitutional without the restoration of the legitimate president, Manuel Zelaya….” [8] This tendency developed even further on October 22. Even a section of the Liberal Party, a party to which the coup perpetuators are linked and one of the biggest political parties in Honduras, joined the protest against the elections. According to an interview accorded to Prensa Latina on October 22: “The Coordination of the Liberal Party against the Coup in Honduras confirmed that it will abstain from participating in the November 29 elections if there is no re-establishment of democracy in the country….In order for the elections to be recognized by the people and the international community, the indispensable requirement is the return to constitutional order and of the legitimate President, Manuel Zelaya. The Coordination was created in the middle of August during a meeting with the participation of more than 5,000 Liberal Party delegates who rejected the break-down of legal democracy carried out by the military on June 28….” [9] Despite all the pressures, on October 25 the National Front, through the voice of its Coordinator Juan Barahona declared that the Front met on October 24 and confirmed their position that “one of the agreements reached was to ratify that if President Zelaya is not returned to his position, there will be no elections on November 29 in the face of the rejection by the vast majority of the people…Barahona pointed out that the candidates running as independents, those from the UD, from the sections of the Liberal Party, as well as Innovación and Unidad Social Democrática parties opposed to the coup, have all anticipated their withdrawal from the elections if Zelaya is not restored….” [10] According to a Prensa Latina report, in order to make sure that this orientation regarding the elections makes its point, on October 25 the Front met at the local neighbourhood base and then following the mandate received from this level, decided on October 25 that the 121st consecutive day of resistance will take place on October 26…. Of great political significance, in my view, is that the Front decided in favour of “the resistance carrying out a variety of initiatives in order to stop the military dictatorship from succeeding in its attempt to seek an appearance of legality through the elections.” [11] This constitutes one of the most important steps in the struggle since the coup; right from the beginning the Honduran oligarchy and those supporting them either directly or indirectly have been attempting to gain time, to stall until the elections take place and in this way “legitimize” the coup. Since June 28, the Honduran people and all progressive forces including the Zelaya legitimate government have been developing their unity, political consciousness, organization and peaceful tactics with the immediate objective being the restitution of Zelaya followed by Constituent Assembly, the latter whether Zelaya is ever returned to power or not. The putschists have provoked a mass movement in the country to renew Honduras through a new constitution as the foundation. In fact the new foundation has already been built on a solid basis constituted of the people’s political consciousness and the innovative alternative organization. For example, in an October 23 interview, Barahona declared that “Honduras completely changed, and we are going to inherit a very positive result of all this; an organization and an important experience. During these days of struggle the level of consciousness has risen far more than by means of a hundred courses on class struggle….” [12] Honduras 2009 already has carved out its place in the most recent history of this small Central American country. It is bound to win, nothing can stop it. Each country in the region has its historic moments which have proven to be watersheds in its respective history: Cuba, as the pioneer, is so rich in ground-breaking historical steps. Taking the most recent history, one can indicate the attack on Moncada in 1953 as the continuation of José Marti’s nineteenth century tradition, and its future development following the Granma landing in 1956, the Sierra Maestra war in 1957-1958, with decisive events such as Che’s historic 1958 action in Santa Clara which broke the back of the pro US-military dictatorship. Venezuela 1998 is now synonymous with the first electoral victory of Hugo Chávez, coming out of a long struggle by the leader and his movement, a year which changed the coursed not only of Venezuela, but affected all of South America. However, a coup d’etat organized by Washington and their allies in Caracas in 2002 turned into a disaster for the US and Venezuelan oligarchy when the political and organizational strength of the people of Venezuela exploded into a massive action. The secret to success, amongst other factors such as the support for the President from a section of the military, had as its basis mass participation as was explained to the author in a recent interview accorded by a Venezuelan participant who is now a Legislator [13].i The columns of people coming from all over completely overwhelmed the coup perpetuators in Caracas. The political consciousness including the need for further organization took a leap forward in a just a couple of days. Bolivia 2005: Evo Morales as an indigenous trade union leader and his movement were hoisted to the head of the government in the wake of a massive and successfully organized involvement of a marginalized people; they discussed and acted upon election procedures and soon after a new Constituent Assembly as the basis of a new constitution. Nicaragua 2006, nourished from the tradition of the 1970s and 1980s but with a renewed political organization and tactics, Daniel Ortega broke through to victory in 2006. Ecuador 2006, the election of Rafael Correa as President proved to be the first step in a rapid succession of political events running into 2008 including a referendum on the need for a Constituent Assembly, the actual election of a Constituent Assembly and the successful referendum on a new modern constitution emerging out of the Constituent Assembly. Honduras 2009 marks the watershed between the old and the new in this country which Zelaya attempted to remove from its position of being one of the poorest nations in South America, an economic and military colony of the USA. Honduras 2009 may continue into 2010, but the Honduran people will win, just as did the Cubans, Venezuelans, Bolivians, Nicaraguans, Ecuadorians and others. Arnold August Author/journalist/lecturer Cuba specialist. First book Democracy in Cuba and the 1997-98 Elections (English, 1999). Chapter entitled “Socialism and Elections”, in Cuban Socialism in a New Century: Adversity, Survival and Renewal, edited by professors Max Azicri and Elsie Deal (University Press of Florida, 2004). Upcoming (English, Spanish, French, fall 2010) Cuba: Participatory Democracy and Elections in the 21st Century. Member of LASA (Latin American Studies Association). This author’s articles To send a message [1] « Entrevista en exclusiva con el presidente Manuel Zelaya, en Tegucigalpa », by Giorgio Trucchi, Rel-UITA, October 5, 2009. [2] « Juan Barahona : ’Si existiera voluntad política de parte de los golpistas lograríamos un acuerdo en media hora’ », Telesur, October 14, 2009. [3] « Comunicado No. 28, Frente Nacional de Resistencia contra el Golpe de Estado », voselsoberano.com, October 13, 2009. [4] « Reanudarán diálogo en Honduras en clima de tensa espera », by Raimundo López, Prensa Latina, October 19, 2009. [5] « Zelaya alerta del fraude que prepara gobierno de facto en elecciones de Honduras », Telesur, October 17, 2009. [6] « Con Carlos Reyes de STIBYS. Siento que los golpistas están arrinconados », by Giorgio Trucchi en Tegucigalpa, Carlos Amorín en Montevideo, Rel-UITA, September 30, 2009. [7] « Receso en mesa de negociación hasta el viernes por petición de delegación de Micheletti », Telesur, October 15, 2009. [8] « Partido hondureño UD se retira de elecciones por considerarlas inconstitucionales », Venezolano de televisión, October 19, 2009. [9] « Liberales se oponen a elecciones en Honduras sin democracia », by Raimundo López, Prensa Latina, October 22, 2009. [10] « Acordó resistencia en Honduras nuevas acciones antigolpistas », Prensa Latina, October 25, 2009. [11] « Convocó resistencia a 121 jornada contra golpe militar en Honduras », by Raimundo López, Prensa Latina, October 26, 2009. [12] « Entrevista con Juan Barahona, dirigente de la resistencia hondureña », tercerainformacion.com, October 23, 2009. [13] Lor Mogollón, Henrys, Deputy ,Yaracuy Province, in a private interview with the author, October 14, 2009, Montreal.

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE

Abdullah’s campaign manager, Satar Murad, said that his candidate would call today for an interim government to run the country until officials can organise a fair election.

The announcement came after a long-awaited decision on US military strategy in Afghanistan was postponed. President Barack Obama demanded more options from the Pentagon at the seventh meeting of his war council on Friday.

The president has devoted 20 hours of meetings to discussing troop levels in Afghanistan as he balances rising domestic opposition to the war with warnings from his top generals that up to 40,000 more troops may be needed to achieve objectives.

This week Obama is expected to hold an eighth meeting with military chiefs, but officials said a decision on troop levels is unlikely before he departs on a week-long trip to Asia on November 11.

Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, insisted that Abdullah’s withdrawal would not affect the legitimacy of a future government, despite intense international efforts last week to force a second round to bolster its credibility.

Leading Republicans are criticising Obama for taking too long to decide whether to flood Afghanistan with new troops — as recommended by his generals — or adopt a scaled-back counterterrorism strategy focusing on Al-Qaeda and effectively leaving swathes of the countryside to Taliban insurgents. Most analysts are expecting a compromise requiring fewer extra troops.

As the US casualty rate increased last month, Obama is also under pressure to explain what victory in Afghanistan will look like and why it is worth risking more American lives.

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE

No Lies News Editor: this is one comment in the Times that seems to sum it up:
Jawan Safa wrote:
The Karzai regime can only be prevented from stealing the elections through their formal removal from power by an interim government – and the elections re-occuring with porper oversight. This is the real solution – but it seems that the hypocritical politicians at the UN and the various NATO countries do not care either for democracy or the wastage of their own citizens lives and treasure.

October 31, 2009 10:27 PM GMT

Using Cash Sign Of Terrorist, According To FBI

Feds demand tattoo shops rat on customers

Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com
Friday, October 30, 2009

Are you in the market for a patriotic tattoo, maybe the Gadsden flag? Forget about it. Unless you want the local tattoo artist to inform on you.

The FBI, in league with the Bureau of Justice Assistance (part of the Department of Justice), has launched a program that harks back to East Germany’s Stasi.

In Philadelphia, the FBI has instructed tattoo shops to rat out their customers if they demand privacy, insist on paying with cash, engage in “suspicious behavior,” make “anti-US” comments, or request tattoos that are “extremist symbols.”

According to the MIAC report, the Gadsden flag is a “militia symbol.” The Department of Homeland Security’s Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment report characterizes militias as “white supremacists,” domestic terrorists and a threat to the president. MIAC is part of the federal “fusion” effort now underway around the country.

It is not merely “extremist symbols.” In addition, the FBI literature instructs tattoo shops to be on the look-out for people who change hair color, style of dress, or shave beards between visits. Suspicious people also include those with missing fingers or hands, chemical burns, strange orders or bright colored stains on clothing.

Read the handout below for more absurd “extremist” indicators according to the FBI.

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE

The parallels between our stinging defeat in Vietnam and our coming defeat in Afghanistan get eerier by the moment. Just as Matthew Hoh, a top-ranking US official and Marine officer in Zabul province resigns in protest over the war – writing that it “reminds me horribly of our involvement with South Vietnam; an unpopular and corrupt government we backed at the expense of our Nation’s own internal peace” – it looks like Karzai is getting the Diem treatment from his American patrons. Or, rather, Diem-lite – since they (probably) have no intention of offing him, but just want to get rid of him as quickly and painlessly as possible. And the way to do that is to “out” him as a CIA asset – which they have done, courtesy of the New York Times.

Citing “current and former American officials,” the article claims that Ahmed Wali Karzai, President Hamid Karzai’s brother, received “regular payments from the CIA” for the past 8 years in exchange for “a variety of services.” Among those services: assisting a “strike force” headquartered in Kandahar, acting as the CIA’s “landlord” in letting them use Mullah Omar’s former compound, and –most importantly – acting as a liaison between the Americans and disaffected (or buy-able) elements of the Taliban insurgency, who might decide to switch sides for the right price.

The Times also accuses Karzai the Younger of being heavily involved in the drug trade. Is there anyone who finds this shocking? As one CIA officer cited in the piece put it: “If you’re looking for Mother Teresa, she doesn’t live in Afghanistan.” The drug-dealing allegation might be leveled at practically anyone in Afghanistan outside of the ultra-Islamist Taliban – which, contrary to American propaganda, virtually eliminated the drug trade during its tenure in power.

The article goes on to detail the younger Karzai’s alleged sins, but the really interesting question this article raises is: who leaked the CIA connection to the Times – and why?

Certainly no one in this country is at all surprised by the news that the Afghan president’s brother is on the CIA payroll – I’d be astonished if he wasn’t. In Afghanistan, however, where the Karzai clan is facing a challenge from followers of Abdullah Abdullah, the CIA link may prove fatal to the president’s political future – and that is precisely the point.

Whoever leaked this was trying to hurt Karzai. Why would certain US officials and military officers be eager to do that? Well, because Karzai’s corrupt administration is an obstacle to their war plans: with the Fashion Plate in the Afghan equivalent of the White House, and his brother collecting tolls from drug traffickers, selling the war in Washington is becoming increasingly difficult. The only way to win support for Obama’s planned escalation, and tamp down dissent in Congress and the general public, is to clean up the Afghan government’s act – and that means dumping Karzai & Co.

As the internal debate within the Obama administration heats up — with hawks centered in the military and the neo-neocon thinktanks (CNAS, the Center for American Progress, etc.) agitating for a full-scale “counterinsurgency” strategy, and “doves” (i.e. realists) opting for a focus on “counter-terrorism” aimed at al-Qaeda – the gung-ho escalators clearly want to ditch Karzai, while the realists posit he’s the best we can hope for in that environment.

The hawks are committed to a counterinsurgency theory which demands the US get down and dirty with the insurgents, with US troops mingling with “the people” and taking risks in order to “protect” them from the Taliban. But what if the people don’t want to be protected – or, instead, seek protection from the Americans? Such a question is never asked by these pompous “theorists,” who, like their neoconservative predecessors, are in thrall to a theory that cannot work and should never even be attempted.

The “COIN” theory [.pdf], as the CNAS crowd terms it, rightly recognizes the primacy of politics and ideological commitment in fighting an insurgency – and wrongly avers they could possibly get a substantial portion of the Afghan people to side with a foreign army of occupation. Like the neocons, who confidently predicted the Iraqis would greet us with cries of joy rather than volleys of bullets, the COIN ideologues see military occupation as an opportunity to build an entire nation from scratch.

Of course, so did the Germans in Vichy France, and in Norway with the Quisling regime. At this point, however, we run into Godwin’s law, and so just think of the Vietnam war. In Vietnam, our chosen sock puppet, Ngo Dinh Diem, received the full backing of the United States — until he started acting independently, and alienating the powerful Buddhist religious leaders, who took to the streets against his regime. President John F. Kennedy then pulled the rug out from under his fellow Catholic and erstwhile ally, and the CIA paid Vietnamese generals $40,000 to knock off Diem. Successive US-backed regimes were installed, and then given the boot by their American paymasters, while the military situation deteriorated (in spite of the increased US troop presence) and the Viet-Cong closed in on Saigon.

That the US has it in for Karzai, who is seen as a leftover from the Bush years, is unmistakable: elements in the administration clearly leaked the information to the Times, and are now preparing to go into the November 7 run-off elections with former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah as their preferred candidate. The Times piece, which singles out Karzai’s brother as the primary architect of the shenanigans surrounding the last election, ruthlessly undercuts Karzai’s attempts to distance himself from Washington, framing him as the candidate of corruption and the hated CIA.

President Karzai had the temerity to protest the “collateral damage” exacted by US air strikes, which took out wedding parties with alarming regularity, and his image in the US Congress is not good: time for him to go. Whether the US can succeed in fixing – or, rather counter-fixing — the election to favor Mr. Abdullah, however, remains to be seen.

What the Americans seek, above all, is a “legitimate” puppet government, one they can sell to Congress and the American people over the next decade or so as they engage in a gigantic “nation-building” counterinsurgency sure to spill over the border into Pakistan. This project will dwarf the invasion of Iraq in terms of its sheer scale and utter impossibility: the cost in lives, and taxpayer dollars, is going to be enormous. With an ineffectual and unreliable puppet and his drug-dealing brother at the helm of the Afghan “government,” Washington despairs of ever making its case to the American people – and so, one way or another, Karzai’s career is on the wane. Perhaps, like Diem, he’ll experience an “accident” from which he may not recover, or maybe he’ll flee to the US, where his friends in the fashion industry might deign to help him start a second career as the Afghan Versace.

In any case, let this serve as a lesson to aspiring would-be American sock puppets everywhere, who see a lucrative future in fronting for Washington: when you stumble, they’ll just kick you away and find another ambitious quisling to take your place faster than you can say “Ngo Dinh Diem.”

READ FULL STORY HERE

KABUL, Afghanistan — Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of the Afghan president and a suspected player in the country’s booming illegal opium trade, gets regular payments from the Central Intelligence Agency, and has for much of the past eight years, according to current and former American officials.

The agency pays Mr. Karzai for a variety of services, including helping to recruit an Afghan paramilitary force that operates at the C.I.A.’s direction in and around the southern city of Kandahar, Mr. Karzai’s home.

The financial ties and close working relationship between the intelligence agency and Mr. Karzai raise significant questions about America’s war strategy, which is currently under review at the White House.

The ties to Mr. Karzai have created deep divisions within the Obama administration. The critics say the ties complicate America’s increasingly tense relationship with President Hamid Karzai, who has struggled to build sustained popularity among Afghans and has long been portrayed by the Taliban as an American puppet. The C.I.A.’s practices also suggest that the United States is not doing everything in its power to stamp out the lucrative Afghan drug trade, a major source of revenue for the Taliban.

More broadly, some American officials argue that the reliance on Ahmed Wali Karzai, the most powerful figure in a large area of southern Afghanistan where the Taliban insurgency is strongest, undermines the American push to develop an effective central government that can maintain law and order and eventually allow the United States to withdraw.

“If we are going to conduct a population-centric strategy in Afghanistan, and we are perceived as backing thugs, then we are just undermining ourselves,” said Maj. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, the senior American military intelligence official in Afghanistan.

Ahmed Wali Karzai said in an interview that he cooperated with American civilian and military officials, but did not engage in the drug trade and did not receive payments from the C.I.A.

The relationship between Mr. Karzai and the C.I.A. is wide ranging, several American officials said. He helps the C.I.A. operate a paramilitary group, the Kandahar Strike Force, that is used for raids against suspected insurgents and terrorists. On at least one occasion, the strike force has been accused of mounting an unauthorized operation against an official of the Afghan government, the officials said.

Mr. Karzai is also paid for allowing the C.I.A. and American Special Operations troops to rent a large compound outside the city — the former home of Mullah Mohammed Omar, the Taliban’s founder. The same compound is also the base of the Kandahar Strike Force. “He’s our landlord,” a senior American official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Mr. Karzai also helps the C.I.A. communicate with and sometimes meet with Afghans loyal to the Taliban. Mr. Karzai’s role as a go-between between the Americans and the Taliban is now regarded as valuable by those who support working with Mr. Karzai, as the Obama administration is placing a greater focus on encouraging Taliban leaders to change sides.

A C.I.A. spokesman declined to comment for this article.

READ FULL STORY HERE

Iraq could scrap SOFA vote

Published: Oct. 6, 2009 at 5:27 PM

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE

Iraqis gather at the site of a massive bomb attack in Baghdad, Iraq, Sunday, 25 Oct. 2009

Iraqi police say two car bombs have claimed the lives of more than 100 people in central Baghdad. More than 200 others have been wounded in the Sunday blasts.

The attackers struck just outside the Green Zone, the heavily fortified area that houses many government buildings.

Police say the first bombing hit the justice ministry. Minutes later, another massive car bomb exploded outside the provincial government headquarters.

Ambulances rushed to the scene. Private cars were also used to ferry the many wounded to hospitals.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility.

While violence in Iraq has dropped dramatically since the height of sectarian fighting, the attacks were the second major security breach in Baghdad – a city filled with checkpoints – in two months. Twin bombings in August struck another two government buildings, killing about 100 people.

Baghdad blamed Syria for harboring the suspects in that attack, a charge Damascus denies. The accusation and suspicions have caused a rift between the neighbors that has yet to be resolved.

Sunday’s bombings occurred as Iraq’s parliament tries to pass legislation needed to hold elections in January. Successful elections are considered a benchmark of Iraq’s return to stability after six years of conflict.

No Lies Editor note to the reader: watch this developing story as a possible false flag attack to force the Iraqi parliament to cancel the vote on the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq that is also scheduled for these January elections. See story here.

A recurring theme among those planning to take part is unity across sectarian lines.

The U.S. military plans to withdraw many of its troops after the vote. Any delay could affect the U.S. timetable for leaving the country.

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE

If someone is caught cheating in the Olympics or another sporting event, the athlete is immediately disqualified, and it is seen as a disgrace. In the case of the recent election in Afghanistan however, cheating has been rewarded and even praised by no less than the President of the United States himself.
President Obama said that he contacted Hamid Karzai shortly after the Afghan president said he would abide by the results of a presidential election held in August.
“I wanted to congratulate him on accepting the certification of the recent election,” Mr. Obama said.

How quickly have we forgotten how many Western leaders hailed the August 20th vote as an example of “democracy,” a democracy mired with fraud? And we’re not talking here about a few hundred “hanging chads,” but rather more than one million ballots (cast on August 20) that were discounted due to the “coefficient of fraud,” as the Electoral Complaints Commission refers to it. Mr. Hamid Karzai now says he wants a better and cleaner presidential election run-off in November to bring stability to Afghanistan at a time when Taliban violence is at its worst in eight years of war. The Afghan leader has played down fraud allegations but bowed to international pressure by ordering a run-off as a way to bolster the election’s credibility at a time when Washington is weighing whether to send more troops to Afghanistan.
“Now that we are holding the second round in two weeks, I want it to be better than the first round,” Karzai said.
Why isn’t Mr. Karzai being held responsible for this blatant act of election fraud? And who can guarantee that a repeat of the fraud won’t happen? Or that all hell won’t break loose during the run-off? Since the August 20 vote, five suicide bombs alone have ripped through the capital Kabul.
Meanwhile, as President Obama ponders sending more troops to Afghanistan, and anxiety and anticipation are building up over the run-off, a recently released UN report says that Afghanistan produces 92% of the world’s opium. The equivalent of 3,500 tons leave the country each year, fetching more than $65 billion to fund global terrorism. The Taliban’s direct involvement in the opium trade allows them to fund a war machine that is becoming technologically more complex.
The report also says that every year, opium kills five times more people in NATO countries than all the NATO lives lost in eight years of fighting against the Taliban. So here is something to think about: according to the CIA’s World FactBook, Afghanistan’s entire GDP in 2008 was $22.27 billion. President Obama’s decision to send 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan to bolster security earlier this year has failed, and the country is just as unstable as ever. Would 40,000 additional troops help? Perhaps for a short while, but with the Taliban and Afghan warlords earning this kind of money from the opium trade not only buy politicians, but can also keep this war going for a hundred years. Afghanistan is not the “good” war.

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE