Mike Malloy Forum Index Mike Malloy
Welcome Truthseekers!
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Chomsky on Industry, Democracy, Military and Reganites.

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Mike Malloy Forum Index -> The Library
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 5:12 am    Post subject: Chomsky on Industry, Democracy, Military and Reganites. Reply with quote

Chomsky on Industry, Democracy, Military and Reganites.
Noam Chomsky interviewed by David Barsamian

David Barsamian: Just going back to Eisenhower, occasionally you see his farewell address quoted, where he said, "We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence...by the military-industrial complex." Forty-plus years have passed since that warning by Eisenhower. The U.S. military has increased exponentially. It now has what Chalmers Johnson calls an empire of bases. What are your views on the military-industrial complex?

Noam Chomsky: I think Eisenhowerís warning was appropriate, but either he didnít understand or else commentators donít understand, but the military-industrial complex, as he called it, is actually the core of the modern economy. Itís not specifically military. The reason we have computers, the Internet, telecommunications, lasers, satellites, an aeronautical industry, tourism, run down the list, is because of a technique to ensure that the U.S. is not a free-enterprise economy. Some are more extreme than others in this respect.

So the Reaganites were extreme in opposition to free enterprise, exactly contrary to whatís being said. They virtually doubled import restrictions, more than all American presidents combined in the postwar era. They poured government money into the economy in an effort to carry out the project that was then called "reindustrializing America." You have to recall that in the early 1980s there was great fear that U.S. industry was being undermined by much more efficient Japanese production. American corporate managers had failed to adopt the modern techniques, such as lean manufacturing, that the Japanese had perfected. And they were, in fact, undermining American industry. Well, you canít allow that. So the Reaganites poured government money into it to reindustrialize America.

And thatís the way the economy works. The core of it is the state sector. Right where weíre sitting is a good example. Whatís MIT? When Eisenhower was making his speech, MIT was working hard, just like Harvard, with government research funds to reduce computers from massive creatures that filled all of these office spaces to something small enough so you could sell it to a company as a mainframe. When they got to that point, right about the time of Eisenhowerís speech, the head of one of the big projects pulled out and formed the first mainframe producer. Meanwhile, IBM was in there learning, on public funds, how to move from punch cards to computers. By the early 1960s, they were able to produce more advanced computers of their own, but not for the public. There is no consumer choice in this. They were doing it for the National Security Agency and other government agencies. In fact, it was years, it was literally decades, before private tyrannies, whatís called free enterprise, were able to take the results of public funding and market them. When Alan Greenspan talks about it, itís the marvels of entrepreneurial initiative and consumer choice, which was approximately zero throughout the costly and risky period of development.

The same is true of the Internet. It was in the public system for thirty years. Weíre supposed to be excited about trade and how wonderful it is. Maybe it is or maybe it isnít, but trade is based on containers, which were developed at public cost in the U.S. Navy. Dave Noble did a very important piece of work on an important part of the economy, basically, computer-controlled machine tools, which were designed not as a technological imperative but for doctrinal reasons, as he shows as a way of deskilling machinists and placing more authority in the hands of managers. The technology didnít have to be used that way. It could have been used the opposite way, as he points out. But it was used that way, and it was developed within the military, where just about everything innovative was developed in the high tech economy, under military cover.

This has little to do with military industry. In fact, itís kind of interesting to look at the records of DARPA, the advanced research agency of the Pentagon (previously ARPA). In, I think it was 1971, in the context of a lot of antiwar pressure, Mike Mansfield introduced legislation called the Mansfield Amendment, which required that military funding by the Congress be used for military purposes. You take a look at the ARPA and DARPA reports before and after. Theyíre interesting. I did it once. Before that, they simply reported what they were doing, namely, creating the economy of the future. After that, the reports are divided sort of into two parts. The first part talks about possible military applications, which mostly are imaginary, and the second part is like the old reports: Hereís what weíre doing. Itís the economy of the future.

Itís going on this minute. MIT has projects right now on efforts to try to control the motions of animals by computers, and maybe even to pick up signals from human brains and translate them into commands to control what other organisms do. This is presented and maybe people believe it as the great new frontier in fighting wars. You will be able to get a commander to tell a pilot, just by thinking, "Anything that flies on anything that moves," or something like that. Thatís pretty unlikely. But the point is, it is contributing directly to what may be the next advanced stage of technology and profits. If you walk around MIT today, around Kendall Square, you see small biotech companies, spin-offs of government-sponsored research in what will be the cutting edge of the economy, namely, biology-based industries. If you went around forty years ago (then to the new Route 128), you would have seen small electronics firms, spin-offs of what was then the cutting edge of the economy, electronics, under military cover.

So Eisenhowerís military-industrial complex is not quite what is generally interpreted. In part, yes, itís military. But a main function of the military, or the National Institutes of Health, or the rest of the federal system, is to provide some device to socialize costs, get the public to pay the costs, to take the risks. Ultimately, if anything comes out, you put it into private pockets. And, again, this has to be done in a way that protects state power and private power from the domestic enemy. You have to say itís to defend ourselves against Grenada or Russia or Guatemala or somebody. If you get people frightened enough, they wonít notice that their taxes are going into creating the profits of IBM and Merck twenty years from now. Why not tell them the truth? Because then they might not make these decisions.

You might argue that these were good decisions, like itís nice to have computers. But thatís not really the point. The point is, who should make those decisions? Suppose you would ask people in the 1950s. Suppose there was some pretense among the educated classes or the power system, some belief that we ought to have something like a democracy. So then you would ask people, you would try to get an informed public to decide, do you want computers twenty-five years from now, or do you want health services now and schools today and jobs today and a livable environment for your children? Whatís your choice?

I can make my guesses. But the point is that anybody with power was afraid of that choice. Theyíre deathly afraid of democracy, and therefore you canít make the choice, and you must manipulate attitudes in the way Bernays [famous U.S.propagandist] described. You must pretend that weíre under threat of attack by Guatemala or Nicaragua if they get a MiG for self-defense against U.S. attack in order to frighten the public into accepting whatís actually happening. Thatís the real military-industrial complex.
Back to top

PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 5:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The cycle of corruption and death continues.

Former top U.S. general gets $200,000-a-year board gig
by Steve Hedges
March 15, 2006

Recently retired Gen. Richard Myers, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who led the Pentagon into war with Iraq, hasn't stayed out of work long.

Northrop Grumman, one of the nation's largest and best-known defense firms, announced Wednesday that Myers, an Air Force veteran and former fighter pilot, has joined its board of directors.

As one of 11 "non-employee" directors, Myers will earn $200,000 a year, according to a company spokesman. Half of that sum is paid to the company's 12 directors in stock.

The company will hold eight scheduled board meetings this year, two of which are conducted by phone. The Pentagon's former top general will also serve on the Northrop Grumman board's Compliance, Public Issues and Policy committee, a job that will undoubtedly make good use of his Washington experience.

"Dick Myers brings to our board outstanding leadership credentials and a deep understanding of the national security challenges facing our country today," company chairman and chief executive officer Ronald D. Sugar said in a statement. "He will be an excellent addition to our board and we look forward to benefiting from his contributions."


"Let the dollars soar"
by Bill Berkowitz
February 3, 2006

Former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft cashes in as Homeland Security lobbyist
Of the many cronies, chums and political appointees that have come and gone through the Bush Administration's revolving door, former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft was one of those who practically disappeared from the news after he resigned from his position in November 2004 (his tenure officially ended in February 2005 when White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales was confirmed as Attorney General.) Unlike former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who was fired by Bush, or Richard Clarke, the former National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counterterrorism -- both of whom spilt the beans about the administration's shortcomings in best-selling books -- Ashcroft moved quietly on.

One of the Christian Right's most stalwart allies within the Bush Administration, Ashcroft hasn't written a best-selling book. He hasn't, as far as I can tell, sung his self-penned paean to America, "Let the Eagle Soar" -- a performance of which is captured in Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" -- at the Grand Ole Opry in Nashville, Tennessee. (According to Wikipedia, Ashcroft has written and sung a number of other songs and created compilation tapes, including In the Spirit of Life and Liberty and Gospel (Music) According to John.)

And Ashcroft apparently isn't going around the country throwing protective curtains over nude statues. (In January 2002, in a bit of unintended DOJ comic relief, the partially nude female statue of the "Spirit of Justice," which stands in the Great Hall of the Justice Department, where Ashcroft held press conferences, was covered with blue curtains, along with its male counterpart, the "Majesty of Law.")

Instead, the former Attorney General has started up a lobbying firm, and in a few months has managed to rake in a fair amount of money representing an assortment of corporate clients, several of whom stand to reap great profits from the president's war on terrorism.

Five years ago, Ashcroft's nomination as Attorney General was sent to the floor of the Senate by a narrow 10-to-eight vote of the Senate Judiciary Committee (all but one Democrat voted against him). The former Senator and Governor from Missouri was then confirmed by the Senate by a 58-42 vote.

(A precious Ashcroft sidebar from Wikipedia: "In his bid for reelection to the Senate, Ashcroft faced a challenge from then-Governor Mel Carnahan ... [who] died in an airplane crash two weeks prior to the election, but [whose] ... name remained on the ballot due to Missouri state election laws. Lieutenant Governor Roger Wilson became Governor upon Carnahan's death. Wilson announced that should Carnahan be elected he would appoint his widow, Jean Carnahan, to serve in her husband's place; Mrs. Carnahan agreed to this arrangement.")

In looking at Ashcroft's controversial tenure in office, several things stand out. As the major pitchman for the Patriot Act and Operation Tips, he was no friend of civil liberties. The Patriot Act (now being reconsidered as the Patriot Act II) allowed police and intelligence agencies greater latitude to conduct secret surveillance and gather information on people even if they were not alleged to be terrorists.

Ashcroft's short-lived Operation Tips was a program designed to get workers and government employees to inform the government of any suspicious activities they encountered while performing their duties. (For more on Operation Tips, see "AmeriSnitch," which first appeared in the May 2002 issue of the Progressive magazine.)

As the "Great Distracter," Ashcroft seemed to frequently deflect the public's attention away from the scads of bad news emanating from the administration by his "timely" appearances at the Justice Department podium announcing the apprehension of yet another suspected terrorist.

Ashcroft's Justice Department was also responsible for the "torture memos" which, Lance Morrow wrote in a recent review of two new collections of essays on torture in the New York Times Book Review, gave "legal cover for getting rough, for 'taking the gloves off' in America's war on terror."

And, recently, by a 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court "rejected the Bush administration's challenge to the nation's only right-to-die law [1994's Death With Dignity Act] ... and ruled that then-Attorney General John Ashcroft overstepped his authority when he sought to punish the Oregon doctors who helped terminally ill people end their lives," the Los Angeles Times reported.

After Ashcroft took office in 2001, he reversed Clinton Attorney General Janet Reno's decision allowing doctors to give medication to end a person's life, declaring that it did not serve a "legitimate medical purpose." Ashcroft, "citing a federal law against drug trafficking ... said Oregon's doctors who persisted in the face of his edict would lose their right to prescribe medication," the Los Angeles Times pointed out.

But, that was then.

In early January, the former AG reappeared in the news in matters related to his new lobbying company. According to the Chicago Tribune, "Less than three months after registering as a lobbyist ... Ashcroft has banked at least $269,000 from just four clients and appears to be developing a practice centered on firms that want to capitalize on a government demand for homeland security technology that boomed under sometimes controversial policies he promoted while in office."

Ashcroft's firm, The Ashcroft Group LLC, received over $200,000 from the San Francisco, Ca.-based Oracle Corp., which the Chicago Tribune reported, "won justice department approval of a multibillion acquisition less than a month after hiring Ashcroft in October."

Oracle, one of the world's largest software companies, "makes large databases, including some used by intelligence services, and plans to use Ashcroft as a consultant for business opportunities on homeland security issues, a company spokesman said."

The Ashcroft Group is also working with ChoicePoint, which the Tribune describes as "a data broker that sells credit reports and other personal information to the FBI and other federal agencies." Another client, LTU Technologies Inc., is a Washington and Paris-based "maker of software for analyzing large batches of video and other visual images."

According to The Hill's Jonathan E. Kaplan, in late-December, Ashcroft's company was hired by Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI), a major Israeli aerospace company, to "to help secure the U.S. government's approval to sell a weapons system to the South Korean Air Force."

"The South Koreans are choosing between an early-warning radar system built by ... IAI and a similar, more expensive system built by Chicago-based Boeing Co. The radar systems enhance an air force's ability to track enemy fighter jets during combat," The Hill reported.

Any country wanting to resell American military technology, must receive approval from the Department of State's Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, an agency, Kaplan pointed out, "can also consult with the Pentagon on whether to issue an export license."

"While Ashcroft's lobbying is within government rules for former officials," the Chicago Tribune noted, it is nonetheless a departure from the practice of attorneys general for at least the last 30 years." Other former AGs have "counseled corporate clients or perhaps even lobbied in a specific case as part of law firm business, [but] Ashcroft is the first in recent memory to open a lobbying firm."

"One would have thought that a former attorney general wouldn't be doing that," John Schmidt, a former associate attorney general in the Clinton administration, who is now a lawyer at Mayer Brown, told the Chicago Tribune. "To take the kind of prestige and stature of the attorney general" and lobby "seems a little demeaning of the office, honestly," he said.

Attorneys General have tended to avoid the role of "a hired gun selling his connections," said Charles Tiefer, a former deputy general counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives and author "Veering Right, How the Bush Administration Subverts the Law for Conservative Causes."

"The attorney general is very much supposed to embody the pure rule of law like the" Department of Justice's "statue of 'Blind Justice' and he's not expected afterwards to cloak with the mantle of his former office a bunch of greedy interests," said Tiefer, who teaches law at the University of Baltimore.

Edwin Meese, who served President Ronald Reagan as the nation's 75th Attorney General, is currently part of the Senior Management team at the Heritage Foundation -- one of the nation's premier right wing think tanks -- where he directs its Center for Legal and Juridical Studies.

President Richard Nixon's former Attorney General John Mitchell wound up in a stickier situation. He was convicted of conspiracy to obstruct justice as part of the Watergate scandal, and served 19 months of a two-and-a-half-to-eight year prison sentence.

"I'm sure that anything John Ashcroft would do would be guided by the highest ethical standards, because that's the kind of person he is," Meese told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. "Without knowing the nature of his clients, this is not different really from former Attorneys General going into law firms, where they do the kind of counseling and advising that he's undoubtedly doing here...

In this period tainted by the Abramoff Affair, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., had a contrary view of Ashcroft's endeavors:

"It is surprising that he moved this quickly into lobbying. I can't think of another Attorney General who has done this. I think it does raise concerns about elected officials. If there is a perception we're not in this for public service but for profit, I think it really could raise questions about our credibility."

According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, in addition to the lobbying, Ashcroft teaches law at the Rev. Pat Robertson's Regent University, "engages in Republican Party activities - including speaking out last week on behalf of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, and gives speeches - from Europe to Las Vegas - at $75,000 apiece."
Back to top

PostPosted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 9:43 pm    Post subject: The Swift Boating of America Reply with quote

The Swift Boating of America
by Greg Grandin
Friday, June 2, 2006
by TomDisaptch.com

An illegal war, torture rooms, warrantless wiretapping, manipulated intelligence, secret prisons, disinformation planted in the press, graft, and billions of reconstruction dollars gone missing: just when it seemed that the Bush administration had reached its corruption quota comes a new scandal. This one is a bribery case involving defense contractors, Republican congressmen, prostitutes, secret Hawaiian getaways, Scottish castles, and -- wait for it -- the Watergate Hotel. At its center is the just ex-Executive Director of the CIA, Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, whose sole qualification for being appointed to that post by just ex-Director Porter Goss seems to have been his ability, while head of the Agency's Frankfurt post, to hand out bottled-water contracts to friends and show junketing politicians a good time.

Don't fret though if you are having trouble separating this particular crime from other Republican offenses. There's a good reason -- they're all one scandal, part of the same wave of militarism, fraud, and ideology that has swamped American politics of late. While this wave of scandal seems now to be heading for tsunami proportions, its first swells date back decades. Just take a look at Dusty's resume.

After his zealotry got him booted from Sears' security and the San Diego police department, Foggo drew on his collegiate Young Republican connections to land a job in the early 1980s with the CIA. His first mission was in Honduras, then the staging ground for Ronald Reagan's secret paramilitary war against Nicaragua's leftist Sandinista government. In addition to his official duties, Foggo helped his old college buddy Brent Wilkes -- the defense contractor now implicated in the ongoing bribery case involving former Republican Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham -- bring conservative cadres down to Central America. There, he introduced them to anti-Sandinista rebels, better known as Contras. It seems that, even then, a lot more than anti-Communist solidarity was on the agenda. Three of Wilkes' former friends now claim that these trips included partying with prostitutes.

A New Right Mecca

Dusty, of course, is not the only veteran of Reagan's Central American policy who has resurfaced to help fight George W. Bush's "Global War on Terror." The list includes John Negroponte, Elliot Abrams, Otto Reich, John Poindexter, John Bolton, Oliver North, Robert Kagan, and Michael Ledeen. They can also be found in the highest levels of the White House: Dick Cheney cut his political teeth in Congress in the 1980s plumping for Reagan's Nicaragua policy, thundering that any attempt to prohibit Contra aid was a legislative "abuse of power." And on the frontlines, James Steele, who led the Special Forces mission in El Salvador and worked with North to run weapons and supplies to the Contras, was sent to Iraq to help train a ruthless counterinsurgency force made up of ex-Baathist thugs. (Steele is batting two for two: As in El Salvador, such training has produced not security but widespread death-squad atrocities.)

Just as progressives from the United States traveled to Nicaragua in the 1980s to support the Sandinistas, militants of the ascendant Reagan Revolution flocked to Honduras as well as El Salvador and Guatemala, where staunchly anti-Communist regimes were waging ruthless counterinsurgencies that resulted in the murder of over 260,000 people. Dig a bit into the past of any of the thousands of religious or secular movement conservatives who came up in those years and odds are, as with Dusty, you'll find they played some role in Central America.

Central America became a New Right mecca because it was the one place where conservatives could match words to deeds. Reagan swept into office promising to restore America's pride and purpose in the post-Vietnam world. But the complexities of the Cold War often forced a more equivocating diplomacy on him than he had promised his followers. There was unexpected conciliation (he befriended Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev) and deep humiliation (the withdrawal of American troops from Lebanon after a devastating car bombing). By midpoint in his second term, the Right had had enough of what they considered Reagan's timidity, condemning their President as an appeaser and a "useful idiot" for his evident willingness to negotiate nuclear-arms reductions with Moscow.

But on Central America, of little geopolitical importance in itself, there would be no conciliation or humiliation. Based on policies designed and executed by the hardest of hardliners in his administration, Reagan's unwavering patronage of death-squad states in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, and his backing of anti-Communist "freedom fighters" in Nicaragua gathered the disparate passions of the conservative movement -- of all those obscure Dusty Foggos -- into a single mission. It also turned Central America into a sinkhole of fanaticism and murder.

Enter Ollie North

Many of those who traveled down to Central America were Young Turk Republicans who would preside over the right-wing radicalization and corruption of the House of Representatives under Reagan in the 1980s and during the Gingrich insurgency of the 1990s. San Diego Representative Bill Lowery, for example, first elected to the House in 1980 at the tender age of thirty-three, traveled in the Foggo and Wilkes Honduran road show, part of a Republican task force organized to help sell Reagan's Contra war against the Sandinistas to a skeptical Congress and public. After leaving office, Lowery, who has floated around the edges of every Republican scandal from the Savings and Loan collapse of the 1980s to the recent Jack Abramoff lobbying case, and is now reportedly under investigation by the Justice Department, went on to become a top lobbyist, skilled in the art of "earmarking."

The corruption represented by Foggo, Wilkes, and Duke Cunningham is an integral part of what President Dwight Eisenhower termed the "military-industrial complex." And it goes hand-in-hand with war-making. If we didn't have an enemy to fight, how could we justify spending all that money on defense, not to mention on the hookers and poker that went with the lobbying parties?

But in the wake of Vietnam, just as Foggo's generation of conservatives was beginning to taste power, the Democratic Congress, along with the State Department and even much of the Pentagon, was not in a fighting mood. Congress had enacted a slew of laws, set up oversight committees, and designed prohibitions to limit the White House's ability to wage war and execute covert actions. Congress now claimed the power to regulate presidential decisions related to military aid, arms sales, and the sending of troops abroad; it also demanded that the CIA inform up to eight committees of its activities. Banned were peacetime assassinations of foreign leaders, as were covert operations against American citizens at home. Worse yet, the USSR, the "evil empire," was proving to be an uncooperative opponent -- or rather, it was being too cooperative, willing to negotiate on a range of security issues. In order to implement a policy of "rollback," as the neocons and militarists wanted to do, one needed an enemy to rollback.

Enter Colonel Ollie North, then an aide to the National Security Council -- and the rest of the Iran-Contra gang. It was twenty years ago this November that a story broke in the press revealing a secret sale, brokered by North, of thousands of high-tech missiles to Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran at a greatly inflated price, with the profits laundered through a rogue's gallery of unsavory middlemen Ė Iranian expatriates, Israeli-arms dealers, right-wing mercenaries, anti-Communist client states like Saudi Arabia, Moonies, and drug runners -- to bypass a congressional prohibition on military aid to the Contras.

No One Left Behind

What became known as "Iran-Contra," however, was much more than an illegal arms deal. It was the New Right's first concerted campaign to restore to the executive branch the power to wage unaccountable war, to override congressional scrutiny, and go on the ideological and military offensive in a place where, unlike in Vietnam, there was no major power to get in the way.

Democratic and public opposition to the Contras, which was strong, proved to be a blessing in disguise for the conservative movement. It forced the White House to rely on its social base to execute its "off-the-books" Nicaraguan war, thus thickening the connections between diverse New Right groups. It created a dense network of intellectuals, action groups, and social movements, uniting mainstream conservatives with militants from the carnivalesque Right. Urbane sophisticates like Ambassador to the UN Jeanne Kirkpatrick and businessmen like Rite-Aid heir Lewis Lehrman (today a member of the infamous neocon Project for the New American Century) made common cause with Soldier of Fortune wet-op lunatics, Sunbelt evangelical capitalists like Pat Robertson, and end-timers like Tim LaHaye (who, long before he hit the best-seller lists with his Left Behind series, was hawking Reagan's Central American crusade to the evangelical rank-and-file).

In Washington, the first generation of neoconservatives, in alliance with politicized Vietnam vets like North who took second-tier positions in the Reagan administration, created an inter-agency war party that allowed them to move forward with support for the Contras despite congressional opposition. The shadowy infrastructure of Iran-Contra, designed to override more cautious area experts in the State Department and the CIA, who opposed Contra funding, foreshadowed Douglas Feith's scheming Office of Special Plans, which cooked the intelligence and helped manipulate the media to make the case for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In fact, a key Feith advisor, neocon intellectual Michael Ledeen, who in the 1980s worked the Israeli angle of the Iran-Contra affair, has recently helped to rehabilitate his old buddy and fellow Iran-Contra luminary, the habitual liar Manucher Ghorbanifar, as a credible proponent of "regime change" in Iran. (There are even reports that the Pentagon, with Dick Cheney's backing, has just put Ghorbanifar on the U.S. payroll.)

It was over Central America that New Right ideologues first began to junk multilateralism. When the International Court of Justice ordered that the United States pay Nicaragua billions of dollars in reparations for mining the country's principle port and for conducting an illegal war of aggression, Washington balked and withdrew from the Court's jurisdiction. It was a "watershed moment," according to legal scholar Eric Posner, in the U.S. relationship with the international community, one that Bush's Ambassador to the UN John Bolton has cited as evidence for why the U.S. should not support the new International Criminal Court.

In the field, Reagan's Central American wars provided a way to reactivate CIA and Pentagon counterinsurgency operatives, desk-bound since the U.S. was kicked out of Southeast Asia, coordinating their work with private mercenaries, conservative (often evangelical) financiers, and a rising Christian fundamentalist movement.

So even as the military high command was taking steps to prevent another Vietnam from happening by attempting to limit the use of American troops to clearly defined objectives with clearly defined exit strategies, civilian ideologues and militarists in Central America were pushing in the opposite direction. In El Salvador, they were funding the largest nation-building counterinsurgency since Vietnam; while in Nicaragua -- where they were hailing rapists, torturers, and murderers as "the moral equivalents of our founding fathers" -- they were advancing a vision of military power used not for specific ends but to launch what they today call a "democratic global revolution."

Watch Out, John Murtha

As does today's "War on Terror," Iran-Contra had a domestic front, which helped to normalize the kind of media manipulation, political harassment, and domestic surveillance that has since become commonplace in Bush's America.

Staffed with psych warfare operatives from the CIA and the Army's Fourth Psychological Operations Group, the Office of Public Diplomacy, set up in 1983 and headed by Otto Reich, carried out a massive campaign of media deception. Working with polls conducted by Madison-Avenue PR firms, the office provided emotive talking points to government officials, pundits, and scholars, linking the Sandinistas to any number of world evils: terrorism, Soviet nuclear submarines, religious and ethnic persecution, Cuba's Castro, East Germans, Bulgarians, PLO leader Arafat, Libyan dictator Qadhafi, Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini, even Germany's Baader-Meinhof Gang -- claims as false as, yet no less effective than, those now famous sixteen words in Bush's State of the Union Address of 2003 that pinned the yellowcake tail on the Iraqi donkey.

It was through Reich's Office of Public Diplomacy that the White House mobilized grassroots conservative organizations not just to supply anti-Communist rebels with arms, bibles, medicine, and food, but to go after congressional and media critics. Here began the "swift boating" of American politics -- distinct from 1950s McCarthyism in that it was actually orchestrated and funded by the executive branch.

For instance, New Right militants, advised by PR experts under government contract, focused much of their work on unseating the congressional anti-militarists elected in the wake of the Vietnam disaster, particularly those who opposed Reagan's Central American policy. If you "cross" Reagan, said a Republican aide, "they're going to carve you up publicly." That's what happened to Maryland Democratic Congressman Michael Barnes during a failed Senatorial bid. He fell victim to a smear campaign organized by International Business Communication, a Republican PR firm that worked closely with Public Diplomacy and the independent Anti-Terrorism American Committee. "Destroy Barnes," said the notes of one of the Committee's operatives. Watch out, John Murtha.

It was also in defense of Reagan's Central American policies that the various branches of the country's intelligence agencies joined forces to intimidate domestic dissenters, anticipating many of the practices -- FBI and CIA file-sharing, for instance -- that would be institutionalized by the Patriot Act and the creation of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (filled by John Negroponte, who presided over the Contra war as ambassador to Honduras, where he reportedly covered-up death-squad murders). And the logic that today justifies Gitmo contains more than a whiff of Oliver North's plan to suspend the Constitution and place domestic opponents of the Contra War in concentration camps.

The Swamp of Militarism and Corruption

Like the Watergate scandal, Iran-Contra started out as a small, back-page newspaper story only to explode into a major constitutional crisis. Yet unlike Watergate, which yielded a broad consensus regarding the dangers of unchecked executive power, Iran-Contra produced no closure. The Tower Commission, appointed by Reagan, focused on procedural issues related to presidential control over the NSA; Congress's investigation turned out to be a mess; and the Special Prosecutor's inquiry dragged on for years, stonewalled by the Department of Justice, with none other than John Bolton taking the lead in playing defense.

One reason neither the public, nor the press, nor the political system ever successfully came to terms with Iran-Contra was the tendency of reporters and government investigators to get lost in a thicket of conspiracy, to waste their energy tracing the tangle of branches that they always hoped would provide a clear map of the crime. Aspects of Iran-Contra were certainly criminal -- illegal arms sales to an enemy nation to fund an illegal war; the use of drug traffickers to run supplies to the Contras; money laundering; the deployment of CIA operatives to influence domestic opinion.

Yet, in a sense, the investigators were all barking up the wrong tree. It wasn't a conspiracy at all, but part of a larger storm of ideological passion, entwining economic interests and political ambition, that delivered the American system to the New Right. Iran-Contra -- and Reagan's Central American policy more broadly -- broke down the tottering levees of a foreign policy already discredited from failure in Vietnam, creating the swamp in which militarism and corruption thrive. Until it is recognized as such, it will continue to suck us down, even as odd pieces of flotsam like Foggo, Wilkes, and Cunningham continue to rise to the surface.

Greg Grandin teaches Latin American history at New York University and is the author of Empire's Workshop: Latin America, The United States, and The Rise of the New Imperialism.

Back to top

PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:32 am    Post subject: Bush lied to congress: Nuclear Technology to Pakistan Reply with quote

Bush admin lied to congress, again
By Evan Derkacz
Posted on July 25, 2006, Printed on July 25, 2006
The Washington Post revealed today that the Bush administration knew of a massive Pakistani nuclear reactor in the works -- capable of producing 50 warheads/year -- but didn't tell congress.[/url]

And the article contains what may well be the quote of the year (in bold type):

"What is baffling is that this information -- which was surely information that our own intelligence agencies had -- was kept from Congress," said Sokolski, now director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. "We lack imagination if we think that this is no big deal."

As Marcy Wheeler notes, the Bush administration hid disputes over Iraqi capabilities, dismissed a memo disputing the Niger claims and, not as widely known, it hid information on North Korean nuclear capability (much farther along than Iraq's) just prior to the vote to invade Iraq.

And now this. But it gets worse. In Ron Suskind's One Percent Doctrine -- which has already burned through two highlighter pens -- he delves deep into the Pakistan/U.S. relations, a dumpster dive if I've ever seen one.

The world's foremost supplier of nuclear technology to anyone with a checkbook, A.Q. Khan -- friend and adviser to Pakistan's dictator, Musharraf -- was busy, according to the CIA in 2001 (THAT'S 2001), dealing nuclear technology to Iran.

So the Bush administration knew that Iran, Libya, and North Korea were receiving weapons technology from their Pakistani allies' friend and adviser, yet they chose to invade Iraq.

A footnote: the "disarming" of Libya was a complete and total lie -- a fabrication.

Gadhafi and the Bush administration had been negotiating a mutually beneficial deal for quite some time, through Musa Kousa, Ghadafi's close adviser.

Kousa turned over intelligence on terrorists to the U.S. -- and negotiated a settlement with the Pan Am Lockerbie families -- in exchange for a high profile Libyan WMD disarmament intended to look like a success for the Bush/Cheney doctrine of Kick Arab Asses till the say Uncle.

Suskind writes, on page 271:

As for George W. Bush, he got to say, countless times, the thing he desperately wanted to say to help offset the crumbling Iraq experiment, a measurable "saving face" aria: that Gadhafi had given up his weapons because of how the U.S. invasion of Iraq had changed the landscape.

That was false, as were, in essence, almost all the public statements by all the involved parties in this so-called "double-play." It wasn't a matter of misstatement: whether it was Musharraf or Bush, everyone knew they were lying.

Pakistan Expanding Nuclear Program
Plant Underway Could Generate Plutonium for 40 to 50 Bombs a Year, Analysts Say.
By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 24, 2006

Pakistan has begun building what independent analysts say is a powerful new reactor for producing plutonium, a move that, if verified, would signal a major expansion of the country's nuclear weapons capabilities and a potential new escalation in the region's arms race.

Satellite photos of Pakistan's Khushab nuclear site show what appears to be a partially completed heavy-water reactor capable of producing enough plutonium for 40 to 50 nuclear weapons a year, a 20-fold increase from Pakistan's current capabilities, according to a technical assessment by Washington-based nuclear experts.

The construction site is adjacent to Pakistan's only plutonium production reactor, a modest, 50-megawatt unit that began operating in 1998. By contrast, the dimensions of the new reactor suggest a capacity of 1,000 megawatts or more, according to the analysis by the Institute for Science and International Security. Pakistan is believed to have 30 to 50 uranium warheads, which tend to be heavier and more difficult than plutonium warheads to mount on missiles.

"South Asia may be heading for a nuclear arms race that could lead to arsenals growing into the hundreds of nuclear weapons, or at minimum, vastly expanded stockpiles of military fissile material," the institute's David Albright and Paul Brannan concluded in the technical assessment, a copy of which was provided to The Washington Post.

The assessment's key judgments were endorsed by two other independent nuclear experts who reviewed the commercially available satellite images, provided by Digital Globe, and supporting data. In Pakistan, officials would not confirm or deny the report, but a senior Pakistani official, speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged that a nuclear expansion was underway.

"Pakistan's nuclear program has matured. We're now consolidating the program with further expansions," the official said. The expanded program includes "some civilian nuclear power and some military components," he said.

The development raises fresh concerns about a decades-old rivalry between Pakistan and India. Both countries already possess dozens of nuclear warheads and a variety of missiles and other means for delivering them.

Pakistan, like India, has never signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. One of its pioneering nuclear scientists, Abdul Qadeer Khan, who confessed two years ago to operating a network that supplied nuclear materials and know-how to Libya, Iran and North Korea.

The evidence of a possible escalation also comes as Congress prepares to debate a controversial nuclear cooperation agreement between the Bush administration and India. The agreement would grant India access to sensitive U.S. nuclear technology in return for placing its civilian nuclear reactors under tighter safeguards.

No such restrictions were placed on India's military nuclear facilities. India currently has an estimated 30 to 35 nuclear warheads based on a sophisticated plutonium design. Pakistan, which uses a simpler, uranium-based warhead design, has sought for years to modernize its arsenal, and a new heavy-water reactor could allow it to do so, weapons experts say.

"With plutonium bombs, Pakistan can fully join the nuclear club," said a Europe-based diplomat and nuclear expert, speaking on condition that he not be identified by name, after reviewing the satellite evidence. He concurred with the Institute for Science and International Security assessment but offered a somewhat lower estimate -- "up to tenfold" -- for the increase in Pakistan's plutonium production. A third, U.S.-based expert concurred fully with the institute's estimates.

Pakistan launched its nuclear program in the early 1970s and conducted its first successful nuclear test in 1998.

The completion of the first, 50-megawatt plutonium production reactor in Pakistan's central Khushab district was seen as a step toward modernizing the country's arsenal. The reactor is capable of producing about 10 kilograms of plutonium a year, enough for about two warheads.

Construction of the larger reactor at Khushab apparently began sometime in 2000. Satellite photos taken in the spring of 2005 showed the frame of a rectangular building enclosing what appeared to be the round metal shell of a large nuclear reactor. A year later, in April 2006, the roof of the structure was still incomplete, allowing an unobstructed view of the reactor's features.

"The fact that the roof is still off strikes me as a sign that Pakistan is neither rushing nor attempting to conceal," said Albright of the institute.

The slow pace of construction could suggest difficulties in obtaining parts, or simply that other key facilities for plutonium bomb-making are not yet in place, the institute report concludes. Pakistan would probably need to expand its capacity for producing heavy water for its new reactor, as well as its ability to reprocess spent nuclear fuel to extract the plutonium, the report says.

After comparing a sequence of satellite photos, the institute analysts estimated that the new reactor was still "a few years" from completion. The diameter of the structure's metal shell suggests a very large reactor "operating in excess of 1,000 megawatts thermal," the report says.

"Such a reactor could produce over 200 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium per year, assuming it operates at full power a modest 220 days per year," it says. "At 4 to 5 kilograms of plutonium per weapon, this stock would allow the production of over 40 to 50 nuclear weapons a year."

There was no immediate reaction to the report from the Bush administration. Albright said he shared his data with government nuclear analysts, who did not dispute his conclusions and appeared to already know about the new reactor.

"If there's an increasing risk of an arms race in South Asia, why hasn't this already been introduced into the debate?" Albright asked. He said the Pakistani development adds urgency to calls for a treaty halting the production of fissile material used in nuclear weapons.

"The United States needs to push more aggressively for a fissile material cut-off treaty, and so far it has not," he said.

Special correspondent Kamran Khan in Karachi, Pakistan, and researcher Alice Crites in Washington contributed to this report.
Back to top

PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 4:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bump to prevent deletion.
Back to top
Apprentice Truthseeker

Joined: 29 Oct 2005
Posts: 333
Location: CLE OH

PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good stuff here. Thanks for bumping it, cuz I never would have seen all this in one place. Kinda connecting the dots blogging-style.

The "Swiftboating of America" piece was a great historical look back at how we got to this place. The level of propaganda and outright lies then seems "quaint" by today's standard set by rove & co & MSM.

This is what drives me MAD when some AAR host (like Franken or Hartmann) has on an AEI guy or some other regressive: they help perpetuate the SAME BS on us.

Great stuff, af. Always enjoy reading your posts.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
But you knew that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 6:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey, thanks BillORightsMan!!!
Back to top

PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Back to top

PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:02 am    Post subject: Did Reagan end the Cold War? Reply with quote

Noam Chomsky interviewed by David Barsamian
David Barsamian: Returning again to Ronald Reagan, Iím looking at a book by Eqbal Ahmad called Terrorism: Theirs & Ours. The cover shows the great communicator sitting in the White House with Afghan mujahideen ( Reagan Mujahideen meeting photograph ). This is not a photograph that is being widely circulated in any of the major media. The Reagan administration was instrumental in supporting the mujahideen, elements of which later morphed into the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

Noam Chomsky:They went beyond supporting them. They organized them. They collected radical Islamists from around the world, the most violent, crazed elements they could find, and tried to forge them into a military force in Afghanistan. You could argue that would have been legitimate if it had been for the purpose of defending Afghanistan. But it wasnít. In fact, it probably prolonged the war in Afghanistan. It looks from the Russian archives as though they were ready to pull out in the early 1980s, and this prolonged the war. But that wasnít the point. The point was to harm the Russians, not to defend the Afghans. So, the mujahideen were carrying out terrorist activities right inside Russia, based in Afghanistan. Incidentally, those terrorist activities stopped after the Russians pulled out of Afghanistan, because what they were trying to do is just what they say, in their terminology, protect Muslim lands from the infidels. When the infidels pulled out, they stopped carrying out terrorist attacks in Russia from Afghanistan. Theyíre now carrying them out from Chechnya, where Russia is carrying out a murderous, devastating repression with U.S. support. And, yes, Islamists were brought to Afghanistan. They were armed, trained, directed by Pakistani intelligence mainly, but under CIA supervision and control, with the support of Britain and other powers, for the purpose of trying to harm the Russians as much as possible at that time. And, yes, they morphed into what became al-Qaeda. Eqbal Ahmad recognized right away, and warnedĖa lonely voiceĖthat the U.S. and its allies were creating a terrorist monster, reviving concepts of "jihad" as "holy war" that had been dormant for centuries in the Islamic world.
Osama bin Laden himself was not anti-American until about 1991, when he changed, for several reasons. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia refused to allow him to carry out a jihad against Saddam Hussein. He wanted to lead an attack against Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War. The Saudis and the U.S. didnít want him to. He was irritated at that. But the main reason for what he says and what Western experts believe is the same as in Afghanistan. The infidels were occupying Muslim land, namely, Saudi Arabia. He was talking about U.S. bases there. And, of course, Saudi Arabia is vastly more important in their theology than Afghanistan. Thatís the site of the two holy cities. Paul Wolfowitz finally agreed that this is correct when they decided to pull out the American bases from Saudi Arabia. He said, well, we have to remove this element thatís supporting al-Qaeda propaganda. Itís more than propaganda; itís probably belief. So, yes, it then became anti-American, as it had been anti-Russian.
Editor of the book 'Terrorism: Theirs & Ours' (interviews with Eqbal Ahmad), which features on its cover a photo of a meeting between Ronald Reagan and Afghan Mujahideen in the Oval Office, Barsamian said today: "During the Reagan administration, the U.S. organized and financed some of the most reactionary elements in Afghanistan which soon thereafter morphed into the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. You could draw an oblique line from the Reagan administration's policies to 9-11.... During the Iran-Iraq war Reagan sent Donald Rumsfeld, special Middle East envoy, to Baghdad to meet with Saddam Hussein. Shortly after shaking hands with the Iraqi dictator the U.S. renewed diplomatic relations and extended military and economic aid to Baghdad. U.S. support for Iraq was decisive in the war continuing until 1988. During the height of Saddam's worst atrocities Reagan said nothing. Throughout his presidency Reagan supported Israel's annexationist policies. His role in the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and subsequent occupation has barely been commented on.... War crimes by U.S. allies such as Iraq and Israel were not a problem for the Great Communicator."

Did Reagan end the Cold War? Let's ask the former ambassador to the Soviet Union, George F. Kennan:

George F. Kennan
George F. Kennan agrees. The former US ambassador to the Soviet Union, and father of the theory of "containment" of the same country, asserts that "the suggestion that any United States administration had the power to influence decisively the course of a tremendous domestic political upheaval in another great country on another side of the globe is simply childish." He contends that the extreme militarization of American policy strengthened hard-liners in the Soviet Union. "Thus the general effect of Cold War extremism was to delay rather than hasten the great change that overtook the Soviet Union."

Though the arms-race spending undoubtedly damaged the fabric of the Soviet civilian economy and society even more than it did in the United States, this had been going on for 40 years by the time Mikhail Gorbachev came to power without the slightest hint of impending doom. Gorbachev's close adviser, Aleksandr Yakovlev, when asked whether the Reagan administration's higher military spending, combined with its "Evil Empire" rhetoric, forced the Soviet Union into a more conciliatory position, responded:

It played no role. None. I can tell you that with the fullest responsibility. Gorbachev and I were ready for changes in our policy regardless of whether the American president was Reagan, or Kennedy, or someone even more liberal. It was clear that our military spending was enormous and we had to reduce it.

In fact, Reagan armed those who we are dying and fighting against now. That is only a fraction of the Reagan legacy. The Reagan Administraton did nothing for four years saying! "Don't trust Mikhail Gorbachev! Parastroka is a Communist trick!"
Reagan armed and trained Osama bin Laden and his followers in their Afghan jihad, and authorized the CIA to help to pay for the construction of the very tunnels in Tora Bora in which his one-time ally later successfully hid from US planes. On the grounds that Nelson Mandela's African National Congress was pro-communist, Reagan vetoed US congress bills putting sanctions on the apartheid regime the ANC was fighting.

His policies towards the Soviet Union were hysterical and counter-productive. He put detente into deep freeze for several years with his insulting label "the evil empire". It led to overblown outrage over the downing by Soviet aircraft of a South Korean airliner that intruded into Russian air space. Moscow's action was inept, but if Reagan had not put the superpowers in collision, the Kremlin might have treated the wayward plane more calmly.

Moscow's policies in the developing world were no less cynical than Reagan's. In Iran and Iraq they played both sides, tilting towards Saddam Hussein, in spite of his execution of communists. They feared Iran's Islamic fundamentalism as much as Washington did. But the cold war was not mainly about ideology, and certainly not freedom. It was a contest for power. By the time Reagan took office, some independent analysts and reporters with experience in the Soviet Union were arguing Moscow's power had peaked.

The CIA was exaggerating the strength of the Soviet economy and the amount being spent on defense (shades of the recent fiasco over Iraq's WMD). The issue was hotly debated, and it was hard to reach the truth of events in a closed society. Those like myself who detected Soviet weakness had to struggle against the Kremlinological establishment, where traditional views were in a majority.

But the record of Soviet behavior suggested that, behind Brezhnev's rhetoric, Moscow had become disillusioned with its international achievements. Its Warsaw Pact allies were unreliable and had to be periodically invaded or threatened.

In the Middle East, Moscow had few allies in spite of decades of trying to win friends through the supply of arms. Egypt had moved west, Syria saw that Russia had no clout on the central issue of Israel and Palestine, the Gulf states were suspicious, and only Yemen and Iraq seemed to offer a little hope.

The Kremlin was losing heart, but its elderly leaders were too ill to draw the consequences. It took a younger leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, to start the process of international withdrawal. High oil prices after 1973 had given Moscow a decade of easy money to finance its part in the US-Soviet arms race while also developing its industrial infrastructure.

By the early 1980s the weakness of the consumer goods sector, the failure to reform agriculture, and the pressure for liberalization coming from a policy elite which had traveled abroad as diplomats, engineers and journalists was about to break the surface.

Reagan's Star Wars project did not bankrupt the Soviet Union into reform, as his admirers claim. In repeated statements as well as his budget allocations Gorbachev made it clear Moscow would not bother to match a dubious weapons system which could not give Washington "first-strike capability" for at least another 15 years, if ever.

The Soviet Union imploded for internal reasons, not least the erratic way Gorbachev reacted to the contradictory processes set in motion by his own reforms. Reagan was merely an uncomprehending bystander. His acceptance in his second term of detente was a u-turn which millions of peace activists in Europe had been demanding.

It was detente that made the end of the cold war possible, and without Reagan's blind anti-communism it could have come at least four years earlier.

But what about the Taliban who unlike Iraq actually had something to do with 9/11?

The headquarters of Unocal are, as might be expected, in Texas. In December 1997, Taliban representatives were invited to Sugarland, Texas. At that time, Unocal had already begun training Afghan men in pipeline construction, with US government approval. BBC News, (4 December 1997): 'A spokesman for the company Unocal said the Taliban were expected to spend several days at the company's [Texas] headquarters ... a BBC regional correspondent says the proposal to build a pipeline across Afghanistan is part of an international scramble to profit from developing the rich energy resources of the Caspian Sea.'
The Inter Press Service (IPS) reported: 'some Western businesses are warming up to the Taliban despite the movement's institutionalisation of terror, massacres, abductions and impoverishment.' CNN (6 October 1996): 'The United States wants good ties [with the Taliban] but can't openly seek them while women are being oppressed.'

The Taliban, rather better organised than rumoured, hired for PR one Leila Helms, a niece of Richard Helms, former director of the CIA. In October 1996, the Frankfurter Rundschau reported that Unocal 'has been given the go-ahead from the new holders of power in Kabul to build a pipeline from Turkmenistan via Afghanistan to Pakistan ..' This was a real coup for Unocal as well as other candidates for pipelines, including Condoleezza's old employer Chevron. Although the Taliban was already notorious for its imaginative crimes against the human race, the Wall Street Journal, scenting big bucks, fearlessly announced: 'Like them or not, the Taliban are the players most capable of achieving peace in Afghanistan at this moment in history.' The NY Times (26 May 1997) leapt aboard the pipeline juggernaut. 'The Clinton administration has taken the view that a Taliban victory would act as counterweight to Iran ... and would offer the possibility of new trade routes that could weaken Russian and Iranian influence in the region.'
The Enemy Within by Gore Vidal
And here some real dirt on the Taliban and Bush, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD201A.html
Back to top

PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would argue that the U.S.' avoidance of any sort of real dialogue and its constant threats and actual wars against any Soviet allies and any independent neutrals actually helped sustain the Soviet dictatorship.

The Soviet dictatorship (like most all dictatorships) maintained some degree of public justification by constantly pointing to the (very real) U.S. threat.

I think it's highly plausible that the U.S.' Cold Warriors helped sustain the Soviet dictatorship, rather than bringing it down.

I also think that someday this will be a fairly common view among Soviet scholars.
Back to top
british harmony

PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

chomsky is a phoney
Back to top

PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

british harmony wrote:
chomsky is a phoney

There it is.

I saw the name Chomsky and read through the thread just to see who would be voicing that anti-Chomsky crap.
Back to top
british harmony

PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 5:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hes a shill for the new world order and maybe you are too
Back to top
british harmony

PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 5:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Mike Malloy Forum Index -> The Library All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group