|
Sunday, December 31, 2006
|
Saddam Execution Set to Destabilise Iraq Further
Saddam's execution is likely to polarize a highly polarized country even more and make an explosive and violent situation even more violent, how can these sides ever unify? Bush has assured Civil War for the longterm or divisoin of Iraq
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=11741
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saturday, December 30, 2006
|
US and Saddam
Here's a video on US-Saddam relations over the years, although it leaves out the Bush Senior as Saddam's point man for loans to build up his military machine that we have posted below
http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html
|
|
|
The Death of Saddam Hussein: Some Reflections
The Death of Saddam Hussein
Douglas Kellner
Saddam Hussein was dead by hanging just before dawn on Friday December 29, 2006 during the morning call to prayer. CNN reported that a video showed Hussein, dressed in a black overcoat being led into a room accompanied by three guards. The video reportedly showed the execution to the point where the noose was placed over Hussein’s head and was then cut off. An Iraqi official who witnessed the death claimed that the former Iraqi president was “strangely submissive” to the process.” Iraq's national security adviser, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, told Iraqi television: “He was a broken man. He was afraid. You could see fear in his face."
In the U.S., the execution of Saddam Hussein was broadcast on the cable television networks around 11:00 PST. The NBC network played a prepared biography of Hussein’s life that stressed his crimes and conflicts with the US. Fox television was an hour behind, replaying a special on his imminent death while CNN had a live special, interviewing experts concerning the effects of Hussein’s death on Iraq’s future. It was reported that US President George W. Bush received news of Hussein’s imminent execution early in the evening but went to bed at his customary 9:00 pm and was not awakened by reports of his death.
Some legal experts shown on US cable news shows were angry that Hussein was executed for only a small number of Shiite deaths and not the massive number of Kurdish deaths, perhaps over 100,000. Others questioned the legal justice of Hussein’s trial and the unseemly rush to execute him, noting that European countries were against the death penalty and on Saturday there were indeed many reports that Europeans widely condemned the execution. Moreover, there were fears that many Muslims would be angered and see the execution as killing one of their own. Most commentators were concerned that Hussein’s death would trigger new rounds of violence.
On Saturday morning there were television images of Iraqi-Americans in Dearborn, Michigan celebrating Hussein’s death, as were Shiite’s in Iraq who saw it as an Eid present, although many Muslims were angry that the execution took place on a revered religious holiday. A report in the Los Angeles Times, however, put a troubling ethnic spin on the execution. In a front-page story, they reported:
Hussein and 14 Iraqi government representatives were flown by helicopter to the site, according to Iraqi High Tribunal Judge Munir Haddad. Guards escorted Hussein into the room, where he denounced the West and Iran.Hussein then climbed the high ladder to the gallows.As his executioners placed a noose around his neck, Hussein blanched but betrayed no emotion, Haddad said.Hussein refused to wear a hood.The charged silence that settled over the execution chamber was broken by an exchange between Hussein and four guards, who were apparently followers of Muqtada Sadr, the militant Shiite cleric whose father was killed by Hussein."Muqtada Sadr!" they cried out.Hussein scoffed in reply.His last word was a sarcastic "Muqtada," Haddad said. "And then he was hanged."
I wonder: Would the most extreme Shiite forces, like the followers of Muqtada Sadr be the major beneficiary of Hussein’s death?
December had been the deadliest month in some years for US troops, with over 107 killed. All indications were that the Bush administration would shortly announce a “surge” of new US troops sent to the country despite the majority of Americans opposing a further Iraq intervention and wanting troops sent home -— facts evidenced during the 2006 Congressional elections in which Bush’s Republican Party lost their control of the House of Representatives and the US Senate.
Meanwhile, the questions emerged concerning what secrets Hussein had taken to his grave. US TV audiences had been shown images of former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld visiting Iraq in December 1983 as a diplomat for the Reagan administration during the Iran-Iraq war. What arms did the Reagan administration give Iraq and did the US provide materials for Iraqi chemical weapons, as has been widely alleged? There were also reports that Vice President George H. W. Bush had approved massive loans for Iraq that enabled them to build their arms programs when he was vice president and then president. What would Saddam have to say about the Rumsfeld visit and his relations with Bush senior? What secrets might Saddam be able to reveal concerning how Bush Senior and Rumsfeld helped him build up his military machine and WMD?
The rightwing in the US predictably celebrated Hussein’s death on blogs and conservative websites, but many Americans and others throughout the world were worried about possible negative consequences of Hussein’s execution. Juan Cole, a history professor at the University of Michigan and producer of the website Informed Comment that compiles commentary on the Middle East for English-speaking audience (http://www.juancole.com/) concluded: “The trial and execution of Saddam were about revenge, not justice. Instead of promoting national reconciliation, this act of revenge helped Saddam portray himself one last time as a symbol of Sunni Arab resistance, and became one more incitement to sectarian warfare.”
The Iraqi Pandora’s Box of Horrors that the Bush administration’s invasion and occupation of Iraq opened has already unleashed frightening violence, killing as many as 660,000 Iraqis and de-stabilizing the whole region. What further horrors would follow from the execution of Saddam Hussein? Who benefits from Saddam’s death and what will be its consequences? Answers to these questions will help determine the fate of Iraq and the Middle East itself.
|
|
|
Saddam's Secrets
Who benefits from the rush to quick execution of Saddam Hussein? Could it be the Bush family? What secrets might Saddam be able to reveal concerning how Bush Sr and Rumsfeld helped him build up his military machine and WMD. Here are some clues:
In 1992, in a series of articles in the Los Angeles Times, Murray Waas documented how George Bush himself actively promoted U.S. trade with Iraq and helped block attempts to criticize Iraq or impose sanctions on it from the Reagan administration until weeks before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Classified documents show that Bush, first as vice president and then as President, intervened repeatedly over a period of almost a decade to obtain special assistance for Saddam Hussein -- financial aid as well as access to hi-tech equipment that was critical to Iraq's quest for nuclear and chemical arms. In Waas’s summary:
"In June 1984 Vice President Bush telephoned the president of the Export-Import Bank to urge approval of a $ 500 million loan guarantee for Iraq to build an oil pipeline. Ex-Im, which had been reluctant, approved.
In February 1987 Vice President Bush telephoned the Ex-Im president to press for $200 million in loan guarantees. Economists warned the bank that Iraq could not repay the loans, but the bank approved the guarantees.
In March 1987 the Commerce Department approved export licenses for shipment to Iraq of dual-use technology, useful for scientific or military purposes. Over the next few years exports of this kind totaled $ 600 million, and much of the equipment may have gone into aerial spying and other military uses.
In August 1988 a cease-fire ended the Iran-Iraq war. But the American tilt toward Iraq continued. Some intelligence was being provided as late as May 1990.
In 1989 Bush, now president signed a national security order directing government agencies to improve ties with Iraq.
In October 1989 Secretary of State James A. Baker telephoned Secretary of Agriculture Clayton Yeutter and urged him to approve $ 1 billion in new loan guarantees to Iraq despite fears that the credits were being misused. In November Yeutter approved the guarantees.
In January 1990 President Bush signed an executive order finding that it would not be "in the national interest” for the Ex-Im Bank to stop loan guarantees to Iraq.
In April and again in June 1990 the Commerce Department proposed restrictions on hi-technology exports to Iraq. An interagency group chaired by Robert M. Gates, then deputy national security adviser to Bush, rejected the proposals.
In July 1990 the Senate voted overwhelmingly to cut off loan guarantees to Iraq because of Saddam's human rights violations, including the gassing of a Kurdish village. The administration condemned the vote.
On July 31, 1990, with 100,000 Iraqi troops massed at the Kuwait border, Assistant Secretary of State John Kelly went to Capitol Hill and testified against ending loan guarantees to Iraq.
On Aug. 2, 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait.[i]""
[i]See Murray Waas, Los Angeles Times (May 7, 1992). Another Los Angeles Times story by Murray Waas and Douglas Frantz, “Bush tied to ’86 bid to give Iraq military advice,” described how: “As vice president during the Ronald Reagan Administration, George Bush acted as an intermediary in sending strategic military advice to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein at a critical point in the Iran-Iraq war, according to sources and classified documents.” A recent book by Chambers Johnson The Sorrows of Empire (2004: 223ff) documents how the CIA helped install Saddam Hussein into power, provided military assistance to Iraq during the 1980s war with Iran, and provided loans and material that enabled him to develop his weapons programs, including chemical and biological weapons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thursday, December 28, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
|
Baath Party Threatens to Retaliate
Bush's sick bloodlust and fanatic devotion to the Death Penalty will create a ruckus in Iraq and serious backlash if they execute Saddam which now looks likely; parenthetically, I just read an analysis of what a mistake it was to execute Timothy McVeigh as it is likely there was much more to know about the Oklahoma City bombings; think of how much dirty stuff Saddam knows, killing him would be a crime (as is the death penalty in any case, a barbaric token of a sick society
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/27/AR2006122700668_pf.html
|
|
|
What has long been a catastrophic tragedy is also now a horrific farce
"British occupation army's assault on its own police force in Basra confirms Iraq as a far greater disaster than Suez". The B rits see Iraq as a worse disaster for them than Suez; hey, guys, think about us! its getting to be as bad as Vietnam!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1978882,00.html
|
|
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
|
Crime of the Century: Are Bush & Cheney Planning Early Attack on Iran?
a desperate Bush-Cheney administration could attack Iran to deflect attention from its massive failures and declining support....
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/node/4177/print
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thursday, December 21, 2006
|
|
|
|
Monday, December 18, 2006
|
|
|
|
Saturday, December 16, 2006
|
|
|
|
Thursday, December 14, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival
Finally, read Chomsky's book Hegemony or Survival and here are some comments:
Chomsky’s Hegemony or Survival is perhaps his best synthesis and overall critique of US policy since the end to World War Two and a sharp critique of the Bush administration which puts its policy atrocities within the framework of US policy of the past decades. His theme “hegemony or survival” is a good one that allows him to do a strong critique of US military policy, and particularly its amassing “weapons of mass destruction” (true in this case!), the Bush administration abrogation of global weapons treaties and the militarization of space. He only mentions ecological threats in passing, in the context of the Bush administration’s refusal to participate in the Kyoto treaty (234-5). Generally, though, this is an excellent summing up and clear presentation of Chomsky’s critique, well-organized, up-to-date, accessible, and spot-on.
He provides an especially damning critique of Reagan administration which has been whitewashed in the media during the Bush years. Chomsky writes (2004: 115): “The Regan years saw a continuation of the relatively poor economic performance of the 1970s. Growth overwhelmingly benefited the very rich, unlike the ‘gold age’ of the fifties and ixties, when it was evenly spread across the population. During the Reagan-Bush years real ways stagnated or declined along with benefits; working hours increased; and employers were given free rein to ignore protection for labor organizing. The policies were, naturally, unpopular. As the Bush I administration reached its final days, Reagan was ranked alongside Nixon as the least popular living ex-president.”
I’d like more on ecological crisis as threat, on the progressive struggles for survival that he notes in the last couple of pages, and inherent tendencies of capitalism to exploit workers, pursue militarization etc while containing crisis tendencies. Chomsky just never makes Marxist arguments though his critique of corporations in globalization is damning and he is strong critic of militarism and US foreign policy. There is also little on race and gender, and not much on class either. Nor does he discuss the pernicious role of the media in this book, although he has obviously covered this topic before. Still, a highly impressive and useful book.
|
|
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
|
|
|
|
Monday, December 04, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sunday, December 03, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Defense nominee's business ties raise concerns
these guys are are crooks and in it for the bucks; here's Cheney and Rumsfeld= "The Bush administration has been dogged by allegations that past corporate affiliations of administration officials led to favored treatment in federal contract awards. Much of the criticism has focused on Cheney's relationship with Houston oil services giant Halliburton, which has secured $1.5 billion in no-bid contracts for reconstruction in Iraq. Cheney was the firm's chief executive and retained Halliburton stock when he became vice president.The Senate Armed Services Committee required outgoing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to divest himself of defense-related stocks to avoid conflicts. But it allowed him to keep holdings worth as much as $25 million in Gilead Sciences Inc., a California company that developed a drug used to treat bird flu. Gilead, for which Rumsfeld served as board chairman, has seen its stock prices soar with sales to the Pentagon and other government customers. Rumsfeld, who through the Pentagon has denied any conflict, reported $5 million in Gilead capital gains in 2005."
For Gates profiteering, see story below
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-gates2dec02,1,5075319,print.story
|
|
Saturday, December 02, 2006
|
|
|
|
Friday, December 01, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
