20030327
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030131-27320419.htm
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/WMDStrategy.pdf
Part of the methodology of shock and awe is the use of nukes. (See above sources for confirmation.) The correct military phrase given to shock and awe translates into: the ends justifies the means. As this war starts to drag on and casualties pile up (and it is already happening--the US has invaded a swamp and is outnumbered despite superior firepower and technology), the nuke option becomes a reality. Yep, that's right. Nuke Baghdad or Basra. Establishment of credibility. The use of weapons of mass destruction in order to stop them. Heh. And they'll do it unless we get these morons out of there, because they won't withdraw the troops, the US army can't tell Iraqi soldiers apart from civilians, and they won't accept defeat. This requires genocidal tactics, and the mildest (!) form would be to simply evaporate a city.
A story from the Guardian:
Shock tactics
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,921286,00.html
One man has been watching the fearsome bombardment of Baghdad more closely than most - Harlan Ullman, the former US navy pilot who convinced Washington to embrace his 'shock and awe' tactic. He tells Oliver Burkeman why the strategy is working
Tuesday March 25, 2003
The Guardian
Shock and awe are not among the words first called to mind by the opening sentences of the final report of the Rapid Dominance Study Group, an informal affiliation of seven men, mainly ex-military, who spent the "mid-1990s meeting to talk defence in the verdant suburbs of Washington. "The purpose of this paper," they began soporifically, "is to explore alternative concepts for structuring mission capability packages around which future US military forces might be configured." One member of the Study Group had co-written a novel with Tom Clancy, as it happened - but they weren't concentrating on the mass market at the time. The paper "was only really meant to be used inside the Pentagon," says its lead author, a 62-year-old, amiable retired navy pilot called Harlan Ullman. But any chance of that had long evaporated by the end of last month, by which time shock and awe, the phrase denoting the military theory that Ullman largely invented, could not be avoided in news coverage of the coming war. On Friday, in Ba"The phrase, as used by the Pentagon now, has not been helpful," Ullman concedes, racing between appointments in Virginia, outside Washington. "It has created a Doomsday approach - the idea of terrorising everybody. In fact, that's not the approach. The British have a much better phrase for it: effects-based operations."
But it is shock and awe that television and newspaper coverage of the war has adopted unanimously to describe the unprecedentedly heavy aerial bombardment unleashed on Baghdad, and other cities in northern Baghdad, from Friday and intermittently over the weekend. And it is shock and awe that has also rapidly come to epitomise, among opponents of the conflict, all the indiscriminate, terror-inducing destructiveness they perceive in the coalition military machine.
Which is, Ullman insists today, "entirely wrong. The notion is to do minimum damage, minimum casualties, using minimum force - even though that may be a lot. It's been taken out of context." At least in the rarefied corridors of the National War College, where Ullman taught, shock and awe was never supposed to be about obliteration but about will power: stunning one's opponent into realising that your might was so enormous, so unbeatable, that the fight was as good as over. "The question is: how do you influence the will and perception of the enemy, to get them to behave how you want them to? So you focus on things that collapse their ability to resist."
This need not necessarily involve massive bombing. On Wednesday night, after US commanders ordered a smaller strike of Tomahawk missiles at targets they believed included Saddam Hussein, CNN, for one, began running an on-screen alert reading "Shock and Awe postponed". But "that was classic shock and awe," says Ullman, who is now strategic associate at the centre for strategic and international studies in Washington. "If you kill the emperor, the empire's up for grabs. And had we killed him, it would have been a classic application [of the theory]: $50m of ordnance, and we won the war."
After this, the argument begins to get a little circular: the postponement of shock and awe "was shock and awe, too," Ullman says, because "we were threatening shock and awe". But the reason for the emergence of the theory at this point in time is clear: it is the philosophical companion to America's staggering technological superiority in warfare. Trying to shock your enemy is not new - "but what was new was the combination of technology and philosophy," Ullman says. "And before Rumsfeld, before 9/11, the Pentagon rejected it, you know. They said: 'We don't understand it.'" They preferred the Powell doctrine - swift overwhelming force to eliminate the enemy, but at potentially huge cost, human and otherwise, on both sides.
Despite Ullman's insistence that the theory is designed to win conflicts with minimum casualties, shock and awe has won him few friends in the anti-war movement, where it has been almost universally interpreted as a recipe for wreaking huge destruction. Some of this is to do with how the Pentagon has presented it: one official told the CBS TV network recently that, "There will not be a safe place in Baghdad... The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before." And much of it has to do with a distinguishing trait of "defence intellectuals": a certain distancing from the grim daily news emerging from real-life battlefronts, and, in Ullman's case, a preference for legendary tales like the one he enjoys recounting about Sun Tzu, the warrior-philosopher of ancient China.
"Sun Tzu was hired by the Emperor as a general, and instead of an interview, the Emperor told him to teach his concubines to march. Because if he could do that, he could do anything. So Sun Tzu said: 'Do I have complete control?' The emperor said yes. So he told them to march, and the concubines just laughed. Then he summoned the head concubine and cut off her head. Then they marched."
For many, though, by far the hardest thing to stomach about Ullman is the historical example he gives of shock and awe working as it should: the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is hard to argue with his opinion that this was "the maximum case of changing behaviour". It is easier to argue with his conclusion that it saved countless lives.
"But take a look at the Japanese during the second world war!" he exclaims. "Large numbers of civilians were committing suicide, and we were bombarding the islands with firebomb raids that would incinerate, in a night, 100,000 Japanese - burn them in the night. This was unbelievable horror. We were starving the Japanese, because we'd blockaded them. General George Marshall projected that invasion would impose about a million American casualties, and we could have de-peopled Japan: no more Japanese. We dropped two nuclear weapons, and they quit.
"They were suicidal in the extreme. And they could comprehend 1,000 bombers, 100,000 dead Japanese, but they couldn't understand one plane, one bomb, one city gone. Those people who say it was inhuman - it wasn't inhuman to drop the atom bomb if you believe in saving lives in the long run. Now, can you do that with a minimum amount of force today? We think you can."
Coalition progress in the current war has been "remarkable", Ullman maintains. "People don't realise. The war just began on Wednesday. It's like saying to Eisenhower, four days after D-Day - why the hell haven't you got to Berlin yet?" In a week, or maybe 10 days, he says, we "will know whether shock and awe has worked" - although it is not clear precisely what will constitute "working".
All of which is not to say that Ullman supports the war. Surprisingly, perhaps, he doesn't. "Where we are is where we are, and this is not a criticism and don't write it as such, but if it had been up to me I would have waited months, perhaps, to get a second resolution, when it would have been clear that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction," he says. "I don't agree with the administration view that Iraq is a clear and present danger, an imminent threat. But as we say in aviation, the three most useless things to a pilot are airspace above you, runway behind you and fuel you no longer have left in the tank."
This is treason!
You're aiding the enemy in killing our boys!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!
ICH LIEBE MEIN VATER!
ICH LIEBE MEINE MUTTER!
ICH LIEBE MEIN HOMELAND!
Totung! Totung! Totung!
Toten sie alle!
Mannschaft USA uber alles!
Mannschaft USA Mannschaft USA Mannschaft USA
uber alles!
(Seig! Ja? Nein? Nein? Warum? Findest du es nicht so gern was ich mag
oder was ich mochte zu tun? Ach, sagst du, daB ich muB nicht so vielen
menschen morden? Entschuldigung Sie bitte--meine Deutsch is doch nicht so
gut.)
You're aiding the enemy in killing our boys!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!
ICH LIEBE MEIN VATER!
ICH LIEBE MEINE MUTTER!
ICH LIEBE MEIN HOMELAND!
Totung! Totung! Totung!
Toten sie alle!
Mannschaft USA uber alles!
Mannschaft USA Mannschaft USA Mannschaft USA
uber alles!
(Seig! Ja? Nein? Nein? Warum? Findest du es nicht so gern was ich mag
oder was ich mochte zu tun? Ach, sagst du, daB ich muB nicht so vielen
menschen morden? Entschuldigung Sie bitte--meine Deutsch is doch nicht so
gut.)
In the Vietnam War, reporters sent home information that dissuaded people at
home from supporting the war while building morale of the opposition to a
slight degree. During Gulf War I the media was addressed and ahandled by
the military as a "problem": their reporting was pushed to the margins, and
the cooperation of the military with the press in terms of direct
interaction was minimal. As a result very little direct evidence of just
about anything was nearly impossible to find. Pretty much all we saw were
pictures of flak over the Baghdad night sky.
Now, during Gulf War II, US war journalism has turned around 180 degrees
from the days of Vietnam, 90 degrees from Gulf War I: the embedding of
journalists in the battle zone allows the military to utilize the coverage
as a psyop tool to frighten the "enemy" and inspire "our boys." The
parameters of journalism are being set not by the conditions of war but
instead by the military, and the journalists are "freely" agreeing to go
along with it.
The 180 degree turn can be understood in terms of who journalists are
working for: as the war in Vietnam "progressed", to a large extent they
became the eyes and ears and voice of the US people; in gulf War II they are
the broadcast and bullhorn of the US military.
The lesson may be that we have to depend on the foreign press to get any
coverage that has any real truth-value. Of course this gives us a whole new
set of biases to examine.
This Russian story is explaining something I've suspected: that the
US/British forces simply do not have the numbers to take either Basra or
Baghdad. Typically it takes a ratio of anywhere from 3:1 to 9:1 to overtake
a resolute force nested inside a city. I think the number of US troops
actually on Iraqi soil right now stands at about 125,000 soldiers; the Iraqi
force, condensed over the last decade, stands at about 375,000.
The "best" US strategy at this point is to "cut off" Basra from Baghdad by
controlling the east-west corridor between Baghdad and Basra and then
suffocate both cities by cutting off various infrastructural needs of city
inhabitants, like water, food, etc. & bomb them in order to terrorize them
, break their will, and reduce their numbers (re: slaughter them wholesale
via air bombing campaigns). Engaging in urban warfare at the current US
strength would spell disaster for the US forces.
If these reported losses are indeed true, you should expect to see reports
of heavy losses from "friendly fire" or by various aircraft accidents away
from the battle zone. The US Military for years has been laundering bodies
through faked aircraft accidents as a means of keeping certain potentially
detrimental pieces of information from the civilian population. Typically
some covert operation might take place here or there, and the US reports no
losses. The next day you'll see a report of a crashed transport vehicle
somewhere where soldiers have died. This is a standard black ops procedure
that has become de rigeur throughout the US Military.
home from supporting the war while building morale of the opposition to a
slight degree. During Gulf War I the media was addressed and ahandled by
the military as a "problem": their reporting was pushed to the margins, and
the cooperation of the military with the press in terms of direct
interaction was minimal. As a result very little direct evidence of just
about anything was nearly impossible to find. Pretty much all we saw were
pictures of flak over the Baghdad night sky.
Now, during Gulf War II, US war journalism has turned around 180 degrees
from the days of Vietnam, 90 degrees from Gulf War I: the embedding of
journalists in the battle zone allows the military to utilize the coverage
as a psyop tool to frighten the "enemy" and inspire "our boys." The
parameters of journalism are being set not by the conditions of war but
instead by the military, and the journalists are "freely" agreeing to go
along with it.
The 180 degree turn can be understood in terms of who journalists are
working for: as the war in Vietnam "progressed", to a large extent they
became the eyes and ears and voice of the US people; in gulf War II they are
the broadcast and bullhorn of the US military.
The lesson may be that we have to depend on the foreign press to get any
coverage that has any real truth-value. Of course this gives us a whole new
set of biases to examine.
This Russian story is explaining something I've suspected: that the
US/British forces simply do not have the numbers to take either Basra or
Baghdad. Typically it takes a ratio of anywhere from 3:1 to 9:1 to overtake
a resolute force nested inside a city. I think the number of US troops
actually on Iraqi soil right now stands at about 125,000 soldiers; the Iraqi
force, condensed over the last decade, stands at about 375,000.
The "best" US strategy at this point is to "cut off" Basra from Baghdad by
controlling the east-west corridor between Baghdad and Basra and then
suffocate both cities by cutting off various infrastructural needs of city
inhabitants, like water, food, etc. & bomb them in order to terrorize them
, break their will, and reduce their numbers (re: slaughter them wholesale
via air bombing campaigns). Engaging in urban warfare at the current US
strength would spell disaster for the US forces.
If these reported losses are indeed true, you should expect to see reports
of heavy losses from "friendly fire" or by various aircraft accidents away
from the battle zone. The US Military for years has been laundering bodies
through faked aircraft accidents as a means of keeping certain potentially
detrimental pieces of information from the civilian population. Typically
some covert operation might take place here or there, and the US reports no
losses. The next day you'll see a report of a crashed transport vehicle
somewhere where soldiers have died. This is a standard black ops procedure
that has become de rigeur throughout the US Military.
Switching the OPEC standard from Dollar to Euro would
be devastating to the US economy. It would foil some of the economic
motivations behind the invasion, and flush America along with it.
The actions of OPEC are far more devastating to superpowers than Afghanistan
invasions. A fact of history perhaps without much supporting logic, but
there it is. Contrary to the popularly-held myth that the USSR's invasion
of Afghanistan led to that superpower's demise, it was OPEC's decision to
triple production overnight that immediately forced the Soviet Union into a
tailspin. Within a very short span of time thereafter, the USSR had moved
into Glasnost. Reforms became the USSR's cover/public disinfo model for
economic collapse.
Why the collapse resulted was simple: Russia has and still does produce as
much oil as Saudi Arabia. However the USSR neither had the reserves nor the
quality of oil to compete if OPEC were to go nuts and wage economic war,
which they did. Most importantly Russia was operating at full capacity
production; the Soviet Union was not able to increase production at all to
stem the economic impact of the increase in production. Since the Soviet
Union made its money largely on oil, and since it was suddenly losing more
than gaining through oil production and sales, it ceased to be able to
provide the basic necessities of life. Food lines were soon to follow and
so too was "reform."
As I understand it, keeping OPEC on the dollar has a transitive but
cumulative effect of foisting off huge amounts of debts onto the OPEC member
nations. It is a form of protection money as I understand it. It is highly
dubious that before the war on Iraq there was any such threat of OPEC
switching from $ to E. Any such action would result in the immediate
collapse of the Saudi royal family overnight. As I said, it seems to be a form of
protection money.
be devastating to the US economy. It would foil some of the economic
motivations behind the invasion, and flush America along with it.
The actions of OPEC are far more devastating to superpowers than Afghanistan
invasions. A fact of history perhaps without much supporting logic, but
there it is. Contrary to the popularly-held myth that the USSR's invasion
of Afghanistan led to that superpower's demise, it was OPEC's decision to
triple production overnight that immediately forced the Soviet Union into a
tailspin. Within a very short span of time thereafter, the USSR had moved
into Glasnost. Reforms became the USSR's cover/public disinfo model for
economic collapse.
Why the collapse resulted was simple: Russia has and still does produce as
much oil as Saudi Arabia. However the USSR neither had the reserves nor the
quality of oil to compete if OPEC were to go nuts and wage economic war,
which they did. Most importantly Russia was operating at full capacity
production; the Soviet Union was not able to increase production at all to
stem the economic impact of the increase in production. Since the Soviet
Union made its money largely on oil, and since it was suddenly losing more
than gaining through oil production and sales, it ceased to be able to
provide the basic necessities of life. Food lines were soon to follow and
so too was "reform."
As I understand it, keeping OPEC on the dollar has a transitive but
cumulative effect of foisting off huge amounts of debts onto the OPEC member
nations. It is a form of protection money as I understand it. It is highly
dubious that before the war on Iraq there was any such threat of OPEC
switching from $ to E. Any such action would result in the immediate
collapse of the Saudi royal family overnight. As I said, it seems to be a form of
protection money.
n the Defense Department there is a shop
where scientists sew the eyelids of rabbits open
lest they blink in the scorch of a nuclear drop
and elsewhere dolphins are being taught to defuse
bombs in the mockup of a harbor and monkeys
learn to perform the simple tasks of draftees.
It is done with electric shocks. Some mice
who have failed their time tests in the maze
now go to the wire unbidden for their jolts.
Implanting electrodes yields rich results:
alley cats turn from predators into prey.
Show them a sparrow and they cower
while the whitewall labs fill up with the feces of fear
where calves whose hearts have been done away
with walk and bleat on plastic pumps.
And what is any of this to the godhead,
these squeals, whines, writhings, unexpected jumps,
whose children burn alive, booby-trap the dead,
lops ears and testicles, core and disembowel?
It all ends at the hole. No words may enter
the house of excrement. We will meet there
as the sphincter of the good Lord opens wide
and He takes us all inside.
-- Maxine Kumin
where scientists sew the eyelids of rabbits open
lest they blink in the scorch of a nuclear drop
and elsewhere dolphins are being taught to defuse
bombs in the mockup of a harbor and monkeys
learn to perform the simple tasks of draftees.
It is done with electric shocks. Some mice
who have failed their time tests in the maze
now go to the wire unbidden for their jolts.
Implanting electrodes yields rich results:
alley cats turn from predators into prey.
Show them a sparrow and they cower
while the whitewall labs fill up with the feces of fear
where calves whose hearts have been done away
with walk and bleat on plastic pumps.
And what is any of this to the godhead,
these squeals, whines, writhings, unexpected jumps,
whose children burn alive, booby-trap the dead,
lops ears and testicles, core and disembowel?
It all ends at the hole. No words may enter
the house of excrement. We will meet there
as the sphincter of the good Lord opens wide
and He takes us all inside.
-- Maxine Kumin
The National Security Council
The the council and the people central to making decisions about American
security...
Establishment of the National Security Council
The National Security Council was established by the National Security Act
of 1947 (PL 235 - 61 Stat. 496; U.S.C. 402), amended by the National
Security Act Amendments of 1949 (63 Stat. 579; 50 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). Later
in 1949, as part of the Reorganization Plan, the Council was placed in the
Executive Office of the President.
Membership of the National Security Council
The National Security Council is chaired by the President. Its regular
attendees (both statutory and non-statutory) are the Vice President, the
Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense,
and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. The
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the statutory military advisor to
the Council, and the Director of Central Intelligence is the intelligence
advisor. The Chief of Staff to the President, Counsel to the President, and
the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy are invited to attend any
NSC meeting. The Attorney General and the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget are invited to attend meetings pertaining to their
responsibilities. The heads of other executive departments and agencies, as
well as other senior officials, are invited to attend meetings of the NSC
when appropriate.
National Security Council's Function
The National Security Council is the President's principal forum for
considering national security and foreign policy matters with his senior
national security advisors and cabinet officials. Since its inception under
President Truman, the function of the Council has been to advise and assist
the President on national security and foreign policies. The Council also
serves as the President's principal arm for coordinating these policies
among various government agencies.
from http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/
*****************************************
CIA as extension of NSC Will....
Section 403, paragraph d of the National Security Act of 1947, which defined
the powers and duties of the CIA:
Section 403. Central Intelligence Agency
(d) Powers and Duties
For the purpose of coordinating the intelligence activities of the
several Government departments and agencies in the interest of national
security, it shall be the duty of the Agency, under the direction of the
National Security Council --
1. to advise the National Security Council in matters concerning such
intelligence activities of the Government departments and agencies as relate
to national security;
2. to make recommendations to the National Security Council for the
coordination of such intelligence activities of the departments and agencies
of the Government as relate to the national security;
3. to correlate and evaluate intelligence relating to the national
security, and provide for the appropriate dissemination of such intelligence
within the Government using where appropriate existing agencies and
facilities: provided, that the Agency shall have no police, subpoena,
law-enforcement powers, or internal-security functions: provided further,
that the departments and other agencies of the Government shall continue to
collect, evaluate, correlate, and disseminate departmental intelligence: and
provided further, that the Director of Central Intelligence shall be
responsible for protecting intelligence sources and methods from
unauthorized disclosure;
4. to perform, for the benefit of the existing intelligence agencies,
such additional services of common concern as the National Security Council
determines can be more efficiently accomplished centrally;
5. to perform such other functions and duties related to intelligence
affecting the national security as the National Security Council may from
time to time direct.
****************************************
Who:
National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice (Stanford, Hoover, Schwab, Chevron, JPMorgan, Hewlett Foundation)
http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/digest/002/rice.html
President George Bush (Carlyle, Pennzoil/Texaco, Arbusto-bin Laden-BCCI, Harken-Harvard)
Vice President Dick Cheney (Halliburton/Brown & Root, Union Pacific)
http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=6008
Secretary of State Colin Powell (AOL/TimeWarner, Bilderberg, former National Security Advisor)
Secretary of the Treasury John Snow (CSX)
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (Searle, Hoover Institution, ABB*, Bilderberg)
*under Rumsfeld's tenure as board member of ABB (Asea Brown Boveri) during the year 2000, ABB sold two nuclear power plants to North Korea.
see:
The Annual General Meeting of ABB Ltd 2000
ABB Ltd held March 16, 2000, its first annual general meeting of shareholders since the creation of the single-class ABB Ltd share.
Shareholders approved the proposal of the Board of Directors to increase the dividend per share to Sfr. 3.00 from Sfr. 2.47 the year before, payable as of March 23, 2000. Re-elected to the Board were Percy Barnevik, Gerhard Cromme, Jürgen Dormann, Martin Ebner, Robert Jeker, Göran Lindahl, Agostino Rocca, Donald Rumsfeld, Edwin Somm, Peter Sutherland and Jacob Wallenberg. The Board intends to re-elect Barnevik as Chairman and Jeker as Vice Chairman.
http://www.abb.com/global/abbzh/abbzh251.nsf!OpenDatabase&db=/global/abbzh/abbzh250.nsf&v=553E&e=us&c=DB787078E7C6EC0341256738005B4931
* * *
ABB to deliver systems, equipment to North Korean nuclear plants (LINK)
US$ 200 million in orders awarded under multi-government framework agreement
Zurich, Switzerland, January 20, 2000 –
ABB, the global technology group, said today it has signed contracts to deliver equipment and services for two nuclear power stations at Kumho, on the east coast of North Korea. The contracts, with a value of US$ 200 million, were awarded by HANJUNG (Korea Heavy Industries and Construction Co. Ltd.) and KOPEC (Korea Power Engineering Corp.).
http://www.abb.com/global/abbzh/abbzh251.nsf!OpenDatabase&db=/global/abbzh/abbzh250.nsf&v=553E&e=us&c=316DCEEDCA12D32E4125686C00433604
The the council and the people central to making decisions about American
security...
Establishment of the National Security Council
The National Security Council was established by the National Security Act
of 1947 (PL 235 - 61 Stat. 496; U.S.C. 402), amended by the National
Security Act Amendments of 1949 (63 Stat. 579; 50 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). Later
in 1949, as part of the Reorganization Plan, the Council was placed in the
Executive Office of the President.
Membership of the National Security Council
The National Security Council is chaired by the President. Its regular
attendees (both statutory and non-statutory) are the Vice President, the
Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense,
and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. The
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the statutory military advisor to
the Council, and the Director of Central Intelligence is the intelligence
advisor. The Chief of Staff to the President, Counsel to the President, and
the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy are invited to attend any
NSC meeting. The Attorney General and the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget are invited to attend meetings pertaining to their
responsibilities. The heads of other executive departments and agencies, as
well as other senior officials, are invited to attend meetings of the NSC
when appropriate.
National Security Council's Function
The National Security Council is the President's principal forum for
considering national security and foreign policy matters with his senior
national security advisors and cabinet officials. Since its inception under
President Truman, the function of the Council has been to advise and assist
the President on national security and foreign policies. The Council also
serves as the President's principal arm for coordinating these policies
among various government agencies.
from http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/
*****************************************
CIA as extension of NSC Will....
Section 403, paragraph d of the National Security Act of 1947, which defined
the powers and duties of the CIA:
Section 403. Central Intelligence Agency
(d) Powers and Duties
For the purpose of coordinating the intelligence activities of the
several Government departments and agencies in the interest of national
security, it shall be the duty of the Agency, under the direction of the
National Security Council --
1. to advise the National Security Council in matters concerning such
intelligence activities of the Government departments and agencies as relate
to national security;
2. to make recommendations to the National Security Council for the
coordination of such intelligence activities of the departments and agencies
of the Government as relate to the national security;
3. to correlate and evaluate intelligence relating to the national
security, and provide for the appropriate dissemination of such intelligence
within the Government using where appropriate existing agencies and
facilities: provided, that the Agency shall have no police, subpoena,
law-enforcement powers, or internal-security functions: provided further,
that the departments and other agencies of the Government shall continue to
collect, evaluate, correlate, and disseminate departmental intelligence: and
provided further, that the Director of Central Intelligence shall be
responsible for protecting intelligence sources and methods from
unauthorized disclosure;
4. to perform, for the benefit of the existing intelligence agencies,
such additional services of common concern as the National Security Council
determines can be more efficiently accomplished centrally;
5. to perform such other functions and duties related to intelligence
affecting the national security as the National Security Council may from
time to time direct.
****************************************
Who:
National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice (Stanford, Hoover, Schwab, Chevron, JPMorgan, Hewlett Foundation)
http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/digest/002/rice.html
President George Bush (Carlyle, Pennzoil/Texaco, Arbusto-bin Laden-BCCI, Harken-Harvard)
Vice President Dick Cheney (Halliburton/Brown & Root, Union Pacific)
http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=6008
Secretary of State Colin Powell (AOL/TimeWarner, Bilderberg, former National Security Advisor)
Secretary of the Treasury John Snow (CSX)
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (Searle, Hoover Institution, ABB*, Bilderberg)
*under Rumsfeld's tenure as board member of ABB (Asea Brown Boveri) during the year 2000, ABB sold two nuclear power plants to North Korea.
see:
The Annual General Meeting of ABB Ltd 2000
ABB Ltd held March 16, 2000, its first annual general meeting of shareholders since the creation of the single-class ABB Ltd share.
Shareholders approved the proposal of the Board of Directors to increase the dividend per share to Sfr. 3.00 from Sfr. 2.47 the year before, payable as of March 23, 2000. Re-elected to the Board were Percy Barnevik, Gerhard Cromme, Jürgen Dormann, Martin Ebner, Robert Jeker, Göran Lindahl, Agostino Rocca, Donald Rumsfeld, Edwin Somm, Peter Sutherland and Jacob Wallenberg. The Board intends to re-elect Barnevik as Chairman and Jeker as Vice Chairman.
http://www.abb.com/global/abbzh/abbzh251.nsf!OpenDatabase&db=/global/abbzh/abbzh250.nsf&v=553E&e=us&c=DB787078E7C6EC0341256738005B4931
* * *
ABB to deliver systems, equipment to North Korean nuclear plants (LINK)
US$ 200 million in orders awarded under multi-government framework agreement
Zurich, Switzerland, January 20, 2000 –
ABB, the global technology group, said today it has signed contracts to deliver equipment and services for two nuclear power stations at Kumho, on the east coast of North Korea. The contracts, with a value of US$ 200 million, were awarded by HANJUNG (Korea Heavy Industries and Construction Co. Ltd.) and KOPEC (Korea Power Engineering Corp.).
http://www.abb.com/global/abbzh/abbzh251.nsf!OpenDatabase&db=/global/abbzh/abbzh250.nsf&v=553E&e=us&c=316DCEEDCA12D32E4125686C00433604
Jimmy Breslin
Familiar, Haunting Words
March 20, 2003
At 8 o'clock last night, the Sikh in a blue turban in the subway change
booth at 42nd Street gave me a little wave and I waved back. Suddenly, he
was a front-line soldier in a war. I designate the subway at Times Square as
a prime target in America in the war with Iraq.
I had just been at the public library, where I discovered the speech that
started World War II. I print much of it here. It is darkly familiar to what
we have been hearing here, when for the first time in American history we
became all the things we ever hated and invaded another country. Herewith
the speech:
Address by Adolf Hitler to the Reichstag, Sept. 1, 1939.
For months we have suffered under the torture of a problem which the
Versailles Diktat created - a problem that has deteriorated until it becomes
intolerable for us ...
As always, I attempted to bring about, by the peaceful method of making
proposals for revision, an alteration of this intolerable position. It is a
lie when the outside world says that we only tried to carry our revisions
through by pressure. Fifteen years before the National Socialist Party came
to power there was the opportunity of carrying out these revisions by
peaceful settlements and understanding. On my own initiative I have, not
once but several times, made proposals for the revision of intolerable
conditions. All these proposals, as you know, have been rejected - proposals
for the limitation of armaments and, even if necessary, disarmament,
proposals for the limitation of warmaking, proposals for the elimination of
certain methods of modern warfare ... You know the endless attempts I made
for peaceful clarification and understanding of the problem of Austria, and
later of the problem of the Sudetenland, Bohemia and Moravia. It was all in
vain.
It is impossible to demand that an impossible position should be cleared up
by peaceful revision, and at the same time constantly reject peaceful
revision. It is also impossible to say that he who undertakes to carry out
the revisions for himself transgresses a law, since the Versailles Diktat is
not law to us.
In the same way, I have tried to solve the problems of Danzig, the Corridor,
etc., by proposing a peaceful discussion. That the problems had to be solved
was clear. It is quite understandable to us that the time when the problem
was to be solved had little interest for the Western Powers. But time is not
a matter of indifference to us ...
For four months I have calmly watched developments, although I never ceased
to give warnings. In the last few days I have increased these warnings ...
I made one more final effort to accept a proposal for mediation on the part
of the British government. They proposed, not that they themselves should
carry out the negotiations, but rather that Poland and Germany should come
into direct contact and once more pursue negotiations.
I must declare that I accepted this proposal and worked out a basis for
these negotiations which are known to you. For two whole days I sat in my
government and waited to see whether it was convenient for the Polish
government to send a plenipotentiary or not. Last night they did not send us
a plenipotentiary, but instead informed us through their ambassador that
they were still considering whether and to what extent they were in a
position to go into the British proposals. The Polish government also said
they would inform Britain of their decision.
Deputies, if the German government and its leader patiently endured such
treatment Germany would deserve only to disappear from the political stage.
But I am wrongly judged if my love of peace and my patience are mistaken for
weakness or even cowardice. I, therefore, decided last night and informed
the British government that in these circumstances I can no longer find any
willingness on the part of the Polish government to conduct serious
negotiations with us.
The other European states understand in part our attitude. I should like all
to thank Italy, which throughout has supported us, but you will understand
for the carrying on of this struggle ... we will carry out this task
ourselves.
This night for the first time, Polish regular soldiers fired on our
territory. Since 5:45 a.m. we have been returning the fire and from now on
bombs will be met with bombs. Whoever fights with poison gas will be fought
with poison gas. Whoever departs from the rules of humane warfare can only
expect that we shall do the same ... until the safety, security of the Reich
and its rights are secured.
***
On that night, Hitler used this dry, unimaginative language to start a world
war that was to kill 60 million, and they stopped counting.
Last night, George Bush, after speech after speech of this same dry, flat,
banal language, started a war for his country, and we can only beg the skies
to keep it from spreading into another world war.
Familiar, Haunting Words
March 20, 2003
At 8 o'clock last night, the Sikh in a blue turban in the subway change
booth at 42nd Street gave me a little wave and I waved back. Suddenly, he
was a front-line soldier in a war. I designate the subway at Times Square as
a prime target in America in the war with Iraq.
I had just been at the public library, where I discovered the speech that
started World War II. I print much of it here. It is darkly familiar to what
we have been hearing here, when for the first time in American history we
became all the things we ever hated and invaded another country. Herewith
the speech:
Address by Adolf Hitler to the Reichstag, Sept. 1, 1939.
For months we have suffered under the torture of a problem which the
Versailles Diktat created - a problem that has deteriorated until it becomes
intolerable for us ...
As always, I attempted to bring about, by the peaceful method of making
proposals for revision, an alteration of this intolerable position. It is a
lie when the outside world says that we only tried to carry our revisions
through by pressure. Fifteen years before the National Socialist Party came
to power there was the opportunity of carrying out these revisions by
peaceful settlements and understanding. On my own initiative I have, not
once but several times, made proposals for the revision of intolerable
conditions. All these proposals, as you know, have been rejected - proposals
for the limitation of armaments and, even if necessary, disarmament,
proposals for the limitation of warmaking, proposals for the elimination of
certain methods of modern warfare ... You know the endless attempts I made
for peaceful clarification and understanding of the problem of Austria, and
later of the problem of the Sudetenland, Bohemia and Moravia. It was all in
vain.
It is impossible to demand that an impossible position should be cleared up
by peaceful revision, and at the same time constantly reject peaceful
revision. It is also impossible to say that he who undertakes to carry out
the revisions for himself transgresses a law, since the Versailles Diktat is
not law to us.
In the same way, I have tried to solve the problems of Danzig, the Corridor,
etc., by proposing a peaceful discussion. That the problems had to be solved
was clear. It is quite understandable to us that the time when the problem
was to be solved had little interest for the Western Powers. But time is not
a matter of indifference to us ...
For four months I have calmly watched developments, although I never ceased
to give warnings. In the last few days I have increased these warnings ...
I made one more final effort to accept a proposal for mediation on the part
of the British government. They proposed, not that they themselves should
carry out the negotiations, but rather that Poland and Germany should come
into direct contact and once more pursue negotiations.
I must declare that I accepted this proposal and worked out a basis for
these negotiations which are known to you. For two whole days I sat in my
government and waited to see whether it was convenient for the Polish
government to send a plenipotentiary or not. Last night they did not send us
a plenipotentiary, but instead informed us through their ambassador that
they were still considering whether and to what extent they were in a
position to go into the British proposals. The Polish government also said
they would inform Britain of their decision.
Deputies, if the German government and its leader patiently endured such
treatment Germany would deserve only to disappear from the political stage.
But I am wrongly judged if my love of peace and my patience are mistaken for
weakness or even cowardice. I, therefore, decided last night and informed
the British government that in these circumstances I can no longer find any
willingness on the part of the Polish government to conduct serious
negotiations with us.
The other European states understand in part our attitude. I should like all
to thank Italy, which throughout has supported us, but you will understand
for the carrying on of this struggle ... we will carry out this task
ourselves.
This night for the first time, Polish regular soldiers fired on our
territory. Since 5:45 a.m. we have been returning the fire and from now on
bombs will be met with bombs. Whoever fights with poison gas will be fought
with poison gas. Whoever departs from the rules of humane warfare can only
expect that we shall do the same ... until the safety, security of the Reich
and its rights are secured.
***
On that night, Hitler used this dry, unimaginative language to start a world
war that was to kill 60 million, and they stopped counting.
Last night, George Bush, after speech after speech of this same dry, flat,
banal language, started a war for his country, and we can only beg the skies
to keep it from spreading into another world war.
From the Democracy Now! Website...
Story: FORMER CIA OFFICIALS CALL FOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS TO LEAK DOCUMENTS
THAT CHALLENGE BUSH ADMINISTRATION PROPAGANDA
http://stream.realimpact.net/rihurl.ram?file=webactive/demnow/dn20030321.ra&start=01:10:43.0
Last week the Los Angeles Times reported on a stunning classified document
from the State Department. It was titled "Iraq, the Middle East, and Change:
No Dominoes." It debunked the Bush Administration's claim that a U.S. attack
and occupation of Iraq would lead to a democratic Iraq, and then help bring
democracy to much of the Middle East. The report was top secret and was
never supposed to be seen by the public. The Bush administration obviously
had little incentive to leak the report - which challenged one of the stated
goals of the war. And today the world would not know about the report if
officials had not secretly leaked the document to reporters.
If a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity has its way,
more officials within the Intelligence community will soon begin leaking
documents that shows the Bush administration is slanting intelligence to
support its case for war with Iraq.
The group was formed two months ago by five CIA veterans. Currently the
group consists of 25 members from the entire defense community (including
the DIA, CIA, Army Intelligence, and the State Department Intelligence
Group).
Ray McGovern, a 27-year CIA veteran who briefed top Reagan administration
security officials before retiring in 1990. He is one of the founders of
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
Daniel Ellsberg, calling in from a protest in Washington, D.C. Ellsberg is
the former Pentagon official who leaked a 7,000-page top secret study of US
decision-making in Vietnam, which later became known as the Pentagon Papers.
He is author of Secrets: a Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers.
Story: U.S. ATTACK PLANS FOR IRAQ ARE MODELED ON HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI: A
DISCUSSION OF "SHOCK AND AWE"
http://stream.realimpact.net/rihurl.ram?file=webactive/demnow/dn20030321.ra&start=27:35.8
Shock and Awe. These are the words the Pentagon is using to describe its
planned air campaign in Iraq.
Though the invasion has started and bombs are raining down on Baghdad, it
appears the shock and awe part of the campaign hasn't gotten underway.
The idea of "Shock and Awe" is to shatter Iraq "physically, emotionally and
psychologically" by raining down on its people at least 300 missiles a day.
That would mean that each day, Baghdad would be bombarded by more missiles
than were launched during the entire 40 days of the 1991 Gulf War.
In January, when the plan was first leaked, a Pentagon official told the CBS
News: "There will not be a safe place in Baghdad."
The plan was born several years ago, when seven former cold war warriors
gathered to rethink US war strategy. The group was co-chaired by Harlan
Ullman, a retired navy destroyer commander. In 1996, the group published its
findings in a book called "Shock and Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance."
Chapter one of the document reads: "Shutting the country down would entail
both the physical destruction of appropriate infrastructure and the shutdown
and control of the flow of all vital information and associated commerce so
rapidly as to achieve a level of national shock akin to the effect that
dropping nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had on the Japanese."
Yesterday's Christian Science Monitor reports author and co-chair Harlan
Ullman is holding up the US nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a
model. He said: "a society that was prepared to die was turned around."
Independent journalist Russell Mokhiber questions Ari Fleischer in a White
House press briefing on Feb. 19th, 2003. He asks how it is possible to
protect civilians under the "Shock and Awe" battle plan.
Jaime Havenar, independent researcher who wrote the first study of "Shock
and Awe." The report is published on the Not In Our Name website.
Story: FORMER CIA OFFICIALS CALL FOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS TO LEAK DOCUMENTS
THAT CHALLENGE BUSH ADMINISTRATION PROPAGANDA
http://stream.realimpact.net/rihurl.ram?file=webactive/demnow/dn20030321.ra&start=01:10:43.0
Last week the Los Angeles Times reported on a stunning classified document
from the State Department. It was titled "Iraq, the Middle East, and Change:
No Dominoes." It debunked the Bush Administration's claim that a U.S. attack
and occupation of Iraq would lead to a democratic Iraq, and then help bring
democracy to much of the Middle East. The report was top secret and was
never supposed to be seen by the public. The Bush administration obviously
had little incentive to leak the report - which challenged one of the stated
goals of the war. And today the world would not know about the report if
officials had not secretly leaked the document to reporters.
If a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity has its way,
more officials within the Intelligence community will soon begin leaking
documents that shows the Bush administration is slanting intelligence to
support its case for war with Iraq.
The group was formed two months ago by five CIA veterans. Currently the
group consists of 25 members from the entire defense community (including
the DIA, CIA, Army Intelligence, and the State Department Intelligence
Group).
Ray McGovern, a 27-year CIA veteran who briefed top Reagan administration
security officials before retiring in 1990. He is one of the founders of
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
Daniel Ellsberg, calling in from a protest in Washington, D.C. Ellsberg is
the former Pentagon official who leaked a 7,000-page top secret study of US
decision-making in Vietnam, which later became known as the Pentagon Papers.
He is author of Secrets: a Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers.
Story: U.S. ATTACK PLANS FOR IRAQ ARE MODELED ON HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI: A
DISCUSSION OF "SHOCK AND AWE"
http://stream.realimpact.net/rihurl.ram?file=webactive/demnow/dn20030321.ra&start=27:35.8
Shock and Awe. These are the words the Pentagon is using to describe its
planned air campaign in Iraq.
Though the invasion has started and bombs are raining down on Baghdad, it
appears the shock and awe part of the campaign hasn't gotten underway.
The idea of "Shock and Awe" is to shatter Iraq "physically, emotionally and
psychologically" by raining down on its people at least 300 missiles a day.
That would mean that each day, Baghdad would be bombarded by more missiles
than were launched during the entire 40 days of the 1991 Gulf War.
In January, when the plan was first leaked, a Pentagon official told the CBS
News: "There will not be a safe place in Baghdad."
The plan was born several years ago, when seven former cold war warriors
gathered to rethink US war strategy. The group was co-chaired by Harlan
Ullman, a retired navy destroyer commander. In 1996, the group published its
findings in a book called "Shock and Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance."
Chapter one of the document reads: "Shutting the country down would entail
both the physical destruction of appropriate infrastructure and the shutdown
and control of the flow of all vital information and associated commerce so
rapidly as to achieve a level of national shock akin to the effect that
dropping nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had on the Japanese."
Yesterday's Christian Science Monitor reports author and co-chair Harlan
Ullman is holding up the US nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a
model. He said: "a society that was prepared to die was turned around."
Independent journalist Russell Mokhiber questions Ari Fleischer in a White
House press briefing on Feb. 19th, 2003. He asks how it is possible to
protect civilians under the "Shock and Awe" battle plan.
Jaime Havenar, independent researcher who wrote the first study of "Shock
and Awe." The report is published on the Not In Our Name website.
1988: Prior to this year, George Bush Jr. is a failed oil man. Three times
friends and investors have bailed him out to keep him from going bankrupt.
But in this year, the same year his father becomes President, some Saudis
buy a portion of his small company, Harken, which has never worked outside
of Texas. Later in the year, Harken wins a contract in the Persian Gulf and
starts doing well financially. These transactions seem so suspicious that
even the Wall Street Journal in 1991 states it "raises the question of ...
an effort to cozy up to a presidential son." Two major investors into Bush's
company during this time are Salem bin Laden, Osama bin Laden's father, and
Khaled bin Mahfouz. [Salon, 11/19/01, Intelligence Newsletter, 3/2/00]
Khaled bin Mahfouz is a Saudi banker with a 20% stake in BCCI, a bank that
will go bankrupt a few years later in the biggest corruption scandal in
banking history (see July 5, 1991). In 1999 Mahfouz will be placed under
house arrest in Saudi Arabia for contributions he gave to welfare
organizations closely linked to bin Laden. [Boston Herald, 12/11/01] The
sister of Mahfouz is married to Osama bin Laden. [Washington Post, 2/17/02]
June 4, 1992: It is reported that the FBI is investigating the connections
between James Bath and George Bush Jr. Bath is Salem bin Laden's official
representative in the US. "Documents indicate that the Saudis were using
Bath and their huge financial resources to influence US policy," since Bush
Jr.'s father is president. Bush denies any connections to Saudi money. What
became of this investigation is unclear. [Houston Chronicle, 6/4/92]
April, 1999: A Saudi government audit shows that five of Saudi Arabia's
billionaires have been giving tens of millions of dollars to al-Qaeda. The
audit shows that these businessmen transferred money from the National
Commercial Bank to accounts of Islamic charities in London and New York
banks that serve as fronts for bin Laden. $3 million was diverted from a
Saudi pension fund. The only action taken is that Khalid bin Mahfouz,
founder of National Commercial Bank, Saudi Arabia's biggest bank, is placed
under house arrest. Bin Mahfouz had invested in George Bush Jr.'s businesses
starting in 1989. The US has not frozen the accounts of bin Mahfouz, and he
continues to engage in major oil deals with US corporations. [USA Today,
10/29/99, Boston Herald, 12/10/01]
January 21, 2001: George Bush Jr. is inaugurated as the 43rd US President,
replacing Clinton. The only major figure to permanently remain in office is
CIA Director Tenet, appointed in 1997 and reputedly a long time friend of
Bush Sr. FBI Director Louis Freeh stays on a few more months, until June
2001. Numerous figures in Bush's administration are directly connected to
the oil industry. Over 50 of Bush's new staff are later shown to have worked
for Enron. [Salon, 11/30/01]
from http://www.itszone.co.uk/George-W-Bush.htm
Personal Note:
bin Mafouz denies virtually every claim made about him, and does so on his
own web site, with a special FAQ page. However, given his diminished
credibility ( two big factorsL 1) his association with BCCI and 2) his
desperate need as a businessman to restore confidence) I wouldn't believe a
word he says.
Osama bin Laden's older brother, Salem bin Laden, heir to the Binladen
Group, and his father, Muhammed, both died in suspicious small craft plane
accidents over Texas. Muhammad in 1968, over Prez Bush I's oil fields, and
Salem, 20 years later, in Texas as well, taking off from a Bush-owned
airfield.
friends and investors have bailed him out to keep him from going bankrupt.
But in this year, the same year his father becomes President, some Saudis
buy a portion of his small company, Harken, which has never worked outside
of Texas. Later in the year, Harken wins a contract in the Persian Gulf and
starts doing well financially. These transactions seem so suspicious that
even the Wall Street Journal in 1991 states it "raises the question of ...
an effort to cozy up to a presidential son." Two major investors into Bush's
company during this time are Salem bin Laden, Osama bin Laden's father, and
Khaled bin Mahfouz. [Salon, 11/19/01, Intelligence Newsletter, 3/2/00]
Khaled bin Mahfouz is a Saudi banker with a 20% stake in BCCI, a bank that
will go bankrupt a few years later in the biggest corruption scandal in
banking history (see July 5, 1991). In 1999 Mahfouz will be placed under
house arrest in Saudi Arabia for contributions he gave to welfare
organizations closely linked to bin Laden. [Boston Herald, 12/11/01] The
sister of Mahfouz is married to Osama bin Laden. [Washington Post, 2/17/02]
June 4, 1992: It is reported that the FBI is investigating the connections
between James Bath and George Bush Jr. Bath is Salem bin Laden's official
representative in the US. "Documents indicate that the Saudis were using
Bath and their huge financial resources to influence US policy," since Bush
Jr.'s father is president. Bush denies any connections to Saudi money. What
became of this investigation is unclear. [Houston Chronicle, 6/4/92]
April, 1999: A Saudi government audit shows that five of Saudi Arabia's
billionaires have been giving tens of millions of dollars to al-Qaeda. The
audit shows that these businessmen transferred money from the National
Commercial Bank to accounts of Islamic charities in London and New York
banks that serve as fronts for bin Laden. $3 million was diverted from a
Saudi pension fund. The only action taken is that Khalid bin Mahfouz,
founder of National Commercial Bank, Saudi Arabia's biggest bank, is placed
under house arrest. Bin Mahfouz had invested in George Bush Jr.'s businesses
starting in 1989. The US has not frozen the accounts of bin Mahfouz, and he
continues to engage in major oil deals with US corporations. [USA Today,
10/29/99, Boston Herald, 12/10/01]
January 21, 2001: George Bush Jr. is inaugurated as the 43rd US President,
replacing Clinton. The only major figure to permanently remain in office is
CIA Director Tenet, appointed in 1997 and reputedly a long time friend of
Bush Sr. FBI Director Louis Freeh stays on a few more months, until June
2001. Numerous figures in Bush's administration are directly connected to
the oil industry. Over 50 of Bush's new staff are later shown to have worked
for Enron. [Salon, 11/30/01]
from http://www.itszone.co.uk/George-W-Bush.htm
Personal Note:
bin Mafouz denies virtually every claim made about him, and does so on his
own web site, with a special FAQ page. However, given his diminished
credibility ( two big factorsL 1) his association with BCCI and 2) his
desperate need as a businessman to restore confidence) I wouldn't believe a
word he says.
Osama bin Laden's older brother, Salem bin Laden, heir to the Binladen
Group, and his father, Muhammed, both died in suspicious small craft plane
accidents over Texas. Muhammad in 1968, over Prez Bush I's oil fields, and
Salem, 20 years later, in Texas as well, taking off from a Bush-owned
airfield.
Though I own a TV, I have it for watching movies. I never really watched
TV very much and still do not. I went quite a few years without
watching. In the aftermath of 9/11 I began watching again, but with the
inquisitve attitude of an anthropologist. What fascinates me most are the
talk shows like Maury and the court shows and the reality shows and of
course the 30 minute infomercials. But what also fascinates me of course is
the propaganda aspect: how the networks are trying to rewrite everyone's
hard drive, so-to-speak, while rewriting history and reality itself (what
reality?).
And what's particularly ironic is that brain-dead Americans are drawing (get this) a parallel between reality TV and war coverage. Uh, excuse me? That has to be one of the most absurdly STUPID things I've heard as of late. And I've heard quite a bit of stupidity lately.
At first I too was disgusted by the swarm of propaganda and its rat-faced lies. I still am, but the shock of it all has worn
off for me. Rationally I knew it was indeed the case, but still to see it
in action is definitely repulsive. But instead of being repulsed I have
tried to accept it as some sort of mirror: it has made me want to come
half-way in my own art and writing, knowing that so much of the audience,
after years of watching this brain-eraser stuff, has nothing left between
their two ears except a basic receptivity to shock.
To be honest, this particular flavor of pro-Military/anti-Terror propaganda been happening for almost 25 years. It started happening
right at the beginning of the Reagan era, when the mass media launched a
campaign to make war acceptable to the masses again. The media did so by
trying to explain to america that "we should never let another Vietnam
happen again." But what THEY meant was not that we should have no more wars
or Americanled atrocities. Oh no. They meant that 1) America needs more
wars & 2) America shouldn't LOSE wars and 3) America lost because America
wasn't tough enough, America was too liberal, America was smoking too much
pot, etc. So it began a campaign that dwelled on suppositions about how
horrible anti-war protesters were to Vietnam vets (which is where the whole
"support your troops" rhetoric began--and it's blisteringly stupid). And that begat people like Rush
Limbaugh in the late 80s as the campaign spread to AM radio.
In viewing American propaganda you are bearing witness to the produce of 22 years of hard labor. You must understand,
foremost, how deeply the American media is penetrated by the CIA and other
spooky interests. And how long such penetration has been in place. And how
much it's grown since the masses of America wanted to shut down the CIA
after the Vietnam War (remember Gary Hart? his fame rests in his anti-CIA
interests from the mid 70s).
Stories For Boys
-----------------
Geo Bush I inherited the CIA and addressed this "perception problem" with a
three-fold approach: 1) make "plausible deniability" the mantra of every
operation 2) re-establish COINTELPRO-style operations, but more covertly,
more "grass-roots", and of course within the CIA as opposed to the FBI and
3) reinvigorate media penetration passively and actively: journalists,
anchors, producers, editors. CIA domestic activity exploded with Bush's
attempts to rescue the CIA from demise. But Carter nearly fucked all that
up when Stansfield Turner just about fired all the old boys. Fortunately,
the Glory that Was The CIA was restored and amplified once ReaganBush
occupied the White House. Well, then Bush tried to put a bullet in Reagan,
but that didn't work, and he realized he'd have to wait his turn. Which
worked out better for that child-molesting Nazi in the long run.
It could be reasonably argued that the American media was always this way, and that the
period between 1967 and 1977 was an aberration, an aberration in the direction of liberalism,
for the American media. It goes without saying (but I just have to say it, how STUPID people sound when they talk about the "liberal" media. Such a statement shows the speaker has no grasp of the meaning of hir own vocabulary.
TV very much and still do not. I went quite a few years without
watching. In the aftermath of 9/11 I began watching again, but with the
inquisitve attitude of an anthropologist. What fascinates me most are the
talk shows like Maury and the court shows and the reality shows and of
course the 30 minute infomercials. But what also fascinates me of course is
the propaganda aspect: how the networks are trying to rewrite everyone's
hard drive, so-to-speak, while rewriting history and reality itself (what
reality?).
And what's particularly ironic is that brain-dead Americans are drawing (get this) a parallel between reality TV and war coverage. Uh, excuse me? That has to be one of the most absurdly STUPID things I've heard as of late. And I've heard quite a bit of stupidity lately.
At first I too was disgusted by the swarm of propaganda and its rat-faced lies. I still am, but the shock of it all has worn
off for me. Rationally I knew it was indeed the case, but still to see it
in action is definitely repulsive. But instead of being repulsed I have
tried to accept it as some sort of mirror: it has made me want to come
half-way in my own art and writing, knowing that so much of the audience,
after years of watching this brain-eraser stuff, has nothing left between
their two ears except a basic receptivity to shock.
To be honest, this particular flavor of pro-Military/anti-Terror propaganda been happening for almost 25 years. It started happening
right at the beginning of the Reagan era, when the mass media launched a
campaign to make war acceptable to the masses again. The media did so by
trying to explain to america that "we should never let another Vietnam
happen again." But what THEY meant was not that we should have no more wars
or Americanled atrocities. Oh no. They meant that 1) America needs more
wars & 2) America shouldn't LOSE wars and 3) America lost because America
wasn't tough enough, America was too liberal, America was smoking too much
pot, etc. So it began a campaign that dwelled on suppositions about how
horrible anti-war protesters were to Vietnam vets (which is where the whole
"support your troops" rhetoric began--and it's blisteringly stupid). And that begat people like Rush
Limbaugh in the late 80s as the campaign spread to AM radio.
In viewing American propaganda you are bearing witness to the produce of 22 years of hard labor. You must understand,
foremost, how deeply the American media is penetrated by the CIA and other
spooky interests. And how long such penetration has been in place. And how
much it's grown since the masses of America wanted to shut down the CIA
after the Vietnam War (remember Gary Hart? his fame rests in his anti-CIA
interests from the mid 70s).
Stories For Boys
-----------------
Geo Bush I inherited the CIA and addressed this "perception problem" with a
three-fold approach: 1) make "plausible deniability" the mantra of every
operation 2) re-establish COINTELPRO-style operations, but more covertly,
more "grass-roots", and of course within the CIA as opposed to the FBI and
3) reinvigorate media penetration passively and actively: journalists,
anchors, producers, editors. CIA domestic activity exploded with Bush's
attempts to rescue the CIA from demise. But Carter nearly fucked all that
up when Stansfield Turner just about fired all the old boys. Fortunately,
the Glory that Was The CIA was restored and amplified once ReaganBush
occupied the White House. Well, then Bush tried to put a bullet in Reagan,
but that didn't work, and he realized he'd have to wait his turn. Which
worked out better for that child-molesting Nazi in the long run.
It could be reasonably argued that the American media was always this way, and that the
period between 1967 and 1977 was an aberration, an aberration in the direction of liberalism,
for the American media. It goes without saying (but I just have to say it, how STUPID people sound when they talk about the "liberal" media. Such a statement shows the speaker has no grasp of the meaning of hir own vocabulary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)