Bonds For Israel--Catch the Fever
What does this mean? It means official and monetary support for the policies of Israel. Of course, the people of the US states were not consulted about the purchases.
It also means these state governments are investing tax monies in, well, investments. Of course they are, you say. Naturally.
No, not naturally. State governments investing tax monies implies these governments are trying to make a profit. The last time I looked, governments were not (legally) in business to make profits. And if they are, where are the precise reports on the success or failure of their efforts? Because, if they’re making large scores, they don’t need to collect as many taxes from their citizens.
The following news releases will give you some idea of the scope of the effort by the Israeli government to work inside the US to obtain $$$ from state governments. It’s a major, major push, and I don’t think it’s too far off to assume that some of the agents Israel deploys in the US are tasked with the job of making that money.
You don’t just get a state government to fork over big bucks for bonds. You need a good plan, you need lobbyists, you need connections, you need people on the ground working as many levers as they can find. It’s a full-time operation.
And since, again, buying those bonds is tantamount to giving full support to the policies of the state of Israel, we’re not just talking about money. We’re into a huge web of American assent on behalf of what the government of Israel is doing. No votes necessary.
I’ve added my comments in caps and brackets to these astonishing news releases.
January 20, 2003
NY Teachers' Retirement buys $5 million
COMPTROLLER THOMPSON ANNOUNCES $5 MILLION STATE OF ISRAEL BOND PURCHASE BY TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM.
New York City Comptroller William C. Thompson, Jr. announced today on behalf of the Teachers' Retirement System (TRS) the purchase of $5 million of State of Israel LIBOR floating rate bonds. The bonds, which were purchased from the Development Corporation for Israel, have a final maturity of 10 years. This is the first direct purchase of bonds from the State of Israel by pension funds.
"The purchase of these bonds serves several purposes," said Thompson. "It will help to strengthen and diversify the Teachers' Retirement System portfolio. In addition, this investment assists the State of Israel and clearly shows our continued support."
"Comptroller Thompson has made a great investment for New York by demonstrating his confidence in Israel's economy and his solidarity with America's best friend and most loyal ally in the Middle East," said Joshua Matza, President and CEO of State of Israel Bonds. [YES, EXACTLY. DEMONSTRATING SOLIDARITY. THE TEACHERS’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM, A GOVERNMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, IS NOW MAKING FOREIGN POLICY.]
March 1, 2003
Love and Money from the Wall Street Journal
Love or Money?
The Wall Street Journal
Friday, January 3, 2003
Some people invest with their hearts as much as their heads.
Israel's credit rating is under pressure, unemployment rising and the economy is contracting amid the two-year long Palestinian uprising. But Israel somehow raised a record $1.3 billion last year selling bonds, up 17% from the previous year.
The buying came from individual investors showing support for the country. But it also came from large buyers, like the state of Minnesota, with a relatively small Jewish community, which more likely was attracted by yields as high as 6% in an otherwise gloomy investment world. [THE STATE OF MINNESOTA JUMPS ON BOARD. DID THE PEOPLE OF MINNESOTA VOTE FOR THIS? DID THEY KNOW ABOUT IT? DID THEY STOP AND THINK? DID THEY CARE?]
June 4, 2003
Israel Bonds raises record $102m in one night
The previous record of $85 million was set last year.
Zeev Klein 5 Feb 03
Israel Bonds issued a record amount of bonds in a single night. On Monday night, $102 million worth of Israel Bonds were sold at the launch of its 2003 sales campaign, held in Florida, in the presence of Minister of Finance Silvan Shalom.
The previous record of $85 million was set last year.
The convention was dedicated to the Columbia space shuttle disaster. Shalom eulogized Israel Air Force Co. Ilan Ramon, saying he represented not only Israel, but the entire Diaspora.
550 Jewish leaders from across the US, Canada, Mexico and South America attended the conference.
Israel Bonds has set a target of $1.25 billion, similar to its target for 2002. The Israeli government also plans an additional $1 billion in independent issues, probably to be covered by the US loan guarantees. [HOLD IT. US GOVERNMENT LOAN GUARANTEES? HELLO? THIS MEANS THE US GOVERNMENT IS SAYING TO ALL INVESTORS, IF THE BONDS HEAD SOUTH AND GO SOUR, WE’LL MAKE SURE YOU DON’T LOSE $$. WE’LL MAKE UP THE SHORTFALL. WOULD THIS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHY 20 STATE GOVERNMENTS IN THE US (YES, 20) ARE NOW BUYERS OF ISRAEL BONDS?]
October 3, 2003
New York State makes new $20 million Israel Savings Bonds investment
New York State Comptroller Alan G. Hevesi (left) wished Israel a Happy New Year when he gave Israel Bonds President and CEO Joshua Matza a presentation check on Sept. 24 to mark a new $20 million Bond purchase from The State's Common Retirement Fund.
Matza and Hevesi's action "demonstrates New York's continuing commitment to strengthen Israel's economy at this critical moment in its history." [KEEP IN MIND THIS PAT PHRASE. IN THIS RELEASE, IT’S NOT ATTRIBUTED TO ANYONE.
November 15, 2003
New Jersey Buys $20 million in Israel Bonds
“With this purchase, New Jersey joins the ranks of 20 other American states who invest in Israel's economic future through Israelbonds.”
Princeton, NJ-- Governor James McGreevey (Far right) presents Israel Bonds President and CEO Joshua Matza (third from left) with a presentation check for $20 million signifying New Jersey's first ever purchase of Israelbonds.
Both McGreevey and Matza stressed the close economic trade and cultural ties between New Jerseyand Israel.
“With this purchase, New Jerseyjoins the ranks of 20 other American states who invest in Israel's economic future through Israelbonds.” [YEAH, 20]
(from left to right) Carol Ehrlich, Director NJ State Treasurer's office; David Halpern, New Jersey Bonds lay leader; Joshua Matza; Roy Tanzman, New Jersey Bonds lay leader; John McCormac, State Treasurer; Governor Mc Greevey. [WHERE WAS GOLAN CIPEL? DID HE HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH MAKING THIS PURCHASE HAPPEN?]
November 21, 2003
Indiana Makes First-Time Israel Bonds Purchase of $5 Million
Indiana State Treasurer Tim Berry (left) presents Michael Blain, Israel Bonds representative (centre) and Douglas Rose, Indianapolis Israel Bonds general chairman (right), with a presentation check to mark the State’s $5 million bond purchase.
Thanks to new legislation, this is the first time the state government of Indiana has been able to invest in Israel bonds. [UNTIL NOW, IT HAD BEEN AGAINST THE LAW TO BUY BONDS ISSUED BY A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT? BIG LOBBYING EFFORT NECESSARY TO GET THAT OVERTURNED.]
Israel Bonds President & CEO Joshua Matza said that the purchase “demonstrates Indiana’s commitment to strengthen Israel’s economy at this critical moment in its history.” [THERE’S THAT PHRASE AGAIN.]
December 30, 2003
New Mexico Makes First-Time Israel Bonds Purchase of $10 Million
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson presents New Mexico Israel Bonds chairman Harold Albert of Albuquerque with a presentation check to mark the State’s $10 million bond purchase. Israel Bonds President & CEO Joshua Matza said that the purchase “demonstrates New Mexico’s commitment to strengthen Israel’s economy at this critical moment in its history.” [THE PHRASE AGAIN. DO THEY CART IT AROUND ON A HORSE?]
Okay. Keep in mind that, these days, every state government is far larger than the sum of all governments in the US colonies of 1776. Now the people are very far away from the machinations of these statehouses. “Returning power to the states” is a sick joke. Buying Israel bonds is fabricating foreign policy at many centers throughout the US---and the idea of withdrawing or limiting US support for the government of Israel would therefore be a Herculean task. The government of Israel knows this.
What I’ve outlined in this article would be a major scandal were it not for the fact that, since WW2, every administration in Washington has fervently supported the government of Israel and has allowed itself to be manipulated by it---and every important media outlet in the US has backed these successive White Houses on the large and unspoken issues---such as support for Israel.
JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com
WAS/IS GOLAN CIPEL MOSSAD?
AUGUST 22, 2004. The NY Daily News is running a story today about Golan Cipel, the NJ governor’s former aide on homeland security issues/PR.
Of particular interest---a comment from Avi Niv, an old classmate of Cipel in Israel:
“Cipel served in the navy as an officer and then moved to a secret position in intelligence, Niv said. Afterward, he worked for Avi Yehezkel, a Labor member of the Knesset, then moved to New York in 1994 and was studying while working as a spokesman for the Israeli Consulate.”
A SECRET POSITION IN INTELLIGENCE?
If this classmate is correct, we have further reason to think that Cipel was a plant, and was used for various purposes within the NJ governor's office.
So far, I can find no US media outlet or wire service with reach into Israel that has followed up on this statement from Niv.
The juxtaposition of "secret position in intelligence" and "worked as a spokesman for the Israeli consulate" is more than suspect, since nations routinely staff their foreign embassies with people who hold neutral titles, but actually work in intelligence.
JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com
US $$$$ TO ISRAEL, PART 2
AUGUST 22, 2004. From the December 9, 2002, edition of the Christian Science Monitor---stats on what aid to Israel costs the US---a controversial assessment by Thomas Stauffer is cited:
"Economist tallies swelling cost of Israel to US" By David R. Francis | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Since 1973, Israel has cost the United States about $1.6 trillion. If divided by today's [US] population, that is more than $5,700 per person [American]. This is an estimate by Thomas Stauffer, a consulting economist in Washington. For decades, his analyses of the Middle East scene have made him a frequent thorn in the side of the Israel lobby...[jr: okay let's say Stauffer is so far off it's incredible, and the real aid figure is not even close to 1.6 trillion....let's say it's, oh, 130 billion...]
"...Considering Israel's deep economic troubles, Stauffer doubts the Israel bonds covered by the loan guarantees will ever be repaid [to the US]..."
..."There are approximately 9,500 pension funds, 3,500 banks, 1,500 labor unions, and 500 insurance companies in the United
States that invest in Israel Bonds. School districts, municipalities, and other large institutions also purchase them. One of the largest sources of institutional investment capital in Israel is from U.S. pension funds through the purchase of Israeli government bonds..."
Assuming the figures in the above paragraph are close to correct, think about the size and range of the ongoing effort to get these organizations to buy bonds and, in effect, give support to the government of Israel and its policies.
Okay. Here is an excerpt from a piece found at the site, Global Exchange:
"Here are just a few reasons why it's time to divest from Israel Bonds: U.S. Financial Aid To Israel: Figures, Facts, and Impact"
"Summary Benefits to Israel of U.S. Aid Since 1949 (As of November 1, 1997) Foreign Aid Grants and Loans$74,157,600,000
"Other U.S. Aid (12.2% of Foreign Aid)$9,047,227,200
"Interest to Israel from Advanced Payments$1,650,000,000"
"Grand Total$84,854,827,200
"Total Benefits per Israeli$14,630
"Cost to U.S. Taxpayers of U.S.Aid to Israel Grand Total$84,854,827,200
"Interest Costs Borne by U.S.$49,936,680,000 [jr: hello? this means the US government is borrowing in order to pay $$ to Israel, and must then pay interest on that borrowing]
"Total Cost to U.S. Taxpayers$134,791,507,200 [$134.7 billion]
"Total [US] Taxpayer Cost per Israeli$23,240"
And finally, here is a tidbit from the WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS:
"Special Reports: Congress Watch: A Conservative Total for U.S. Aid to Israel: $91 Billion—and Counting."
"...Congressional researchers have disclosed that between 1974 and 1989, $16.4 billion in U.S. military loans were converted to grants [outright gifts] and that this was the understanding from the beginning. Indeed, all past U.S. loans to Israel have eventually been forgiven by Congress, which has undoubtedly helped Israel's often-touted claim that they have never defaulted on a U.S. government loan..."
Forgiving loans? Borrowing in order to make loans? 134 billion?
And, as far major US media are concerned, all this is mostly flying under the radar.
There is virtually no debate in Congress about these billions in gifts to Israel.
Poof. Gone.
JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com
THE FOUL SMELL OF THE LIARS
AUGUST 21, 2004. I'm reposting this piece because, just as I suspected, the whole story has sunk like a stone into a very deep lake.
We're talking about clear evidence of the brutal con game that was launched in Iraq right from the beginning. I hope you will do your part in getting the word out.
As everyone knows by now, Bush floated a series of reasons for going into Iraq, and then reshuffled that deck several times to arrive at "the final reasons" for making war. One of those final reasons was BRINGING FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY TO THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ.
Of course, only the brain dead would believe such a whopper. Unfortunately, most people are politically brain dead. They equate democracy with getting rid of Saddam and bombing. They don't wonder about the structure that will be imposed in the wake of the bombing.
That structure happens to be embodied in the rules of transfer from the US provisional authority to the Iraqi people. Who reads that stuff?
Somebody did, and he wrote a piece about it for the LA Times. I'm not big on the Times, but they do, now and then, get the goods.
Quick background: on the planetary chessboard, the underdeveloped nations are slated for continuing futures of external control. That means that no matter what the structure of their governments, the real power is money and the money comes in from the outside in the form of ownership of major local industries and arable land and so on. In other words, these nations are colonies. The IMF goes a long way toward shaping this brutal reality. Argentina, the country that went broke, is a good recent example.
One might therefore expect that Iraq would fall under the same sort of umbrella, in which case no one could imagine it would become free or democratic. Well, it turns out that is exactly the case, and the evidence is contained in those rules of transfer of power. The transfer is actually from Saddam to the new and improved slave masters.
Here is my piece on it, and the Times piece, from earlier this month. You'd think this will be a MAJOR and explosive campaign issue in the current run-up to the presidential election in America. You would be wrong.
AUGUST 8, 2004. The game is exposed. The war is exposed. The fighting and dying are exposed. The White House is exposed. The Democrats and Republicans are exposed.
The LA Times piece, reprinted below, gives a good idea of what democracy in Iraq and freedom in Iraq will really mean.
They will mean what IMF and WTO have permitted to a number of nations around the world: hold free elections, go with a legislature, but don’t try to mess with economic ground rules and with OUTSIDE control of the country.
In other words, everything Bush has been mouthing about bringing democracy to Iraq is a bald sham. There will be no democracy in any significant sense. There was never meant to be a democracy. Bush was lying; Bush is lying; Bush will continue to lie.
And Kerry won’t make this a campaign issue. He is in the same ballpark as Bush.
No media outlet in the US will pound on this deception. It will sink like a stone. No pundits on the talk shows will raise this issue. It will remain mostly invisible.
And young men and women will have fought and died in Iraq for a new freedom that was never meant to be.
This war was, on ground level, about control of Iraq.
“Give us your children; we will send them to Iraq to bring an outside economic dictatorship to the region.”
Imagine an American revolution (1776) that ended with a constitution that was encircled with complete economic control of the new country by the British. Would that have been freedom?
This reminds me a bit of the effects of NAFTA in the last ten years: NO participating nation has benefited in any significant way. Every nation has lost. The winners have been several transnational corporations, who owe no allegiance to any nation.
The Hand-Over That Wasn't: Illegal Orders give the US a Lock on Iraq's Economy
by Antonia Juhasz
08/06/04 Los Angeles Times -- Officially, the U.S. occupation of Iraq ended on June 28, 2004. But in reality, the United States is still in charge: Not only do 138,000 troops remain to control the streets, but the "100 Orders" of L. Paul Bremer III remain to control the economy.
These little noticed orders enacted by Bremer, the now-departed head of the now-defunct Coalition Provisional Authority, go to the heart of Bush administration plans in Iraq. They lock in sweeping advantages to American firms, ensuring long-term U.S. economic advantage while guaranteeing few, if any, benefits to the Iraqi people.
The Bremer orders control every aspect of Iraqi life ”from the use of car horns to the privatization of state-owned enterprises.”
Order No. 39 alone does no less than "transition [Iraq ] from a “centrally planned economy to a market economy" virtually overnight and by U.S. fiat. Although many thought that the "end" of the occupation would also mean the end of the orders, on his last day in Iraq Bremer simply transferred authority for the orders to Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, a 30-year exile with close ties to the CIA and British intelligence. Further, the interim constitution of Iraq, written by the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, solidifies the orders by making them virtually impossible to overturn.
A sampling of the most important orders demonstrates the economic imprint left by the Bush administration: Order No. 39 allows for: (1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) "national treatment" which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses. Thus, it forbids Iraqis from receiving preference in the reconstruction while allowing foreign corporations, Halliburton and Bechtel, for example, to buy up Iraqi businesses, do all of the work and send all of their money home. They cannot be required to hire Iraqis or to reinvest their money in the Iraqi economy. They can take out their investments at any time and in any amount.
Orders No. 57 and No. 77 ensure the implementation of the orders by placing U.S.-appointed auditors and inspector generals in every government ministry, with five-year terms and with sweeping authority over contracts, programs, employees and regulations. Order No. 17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq's laws. Even if they, say, kill someone or cause an environmental disaster, the injured party cannot turn to the Iraqi legal system. Rather, the charges must be brought to U.S. courts.
Order No. 40 allows foreign banks to purchase up to 50% of Iraqi banks. Order No. 49 drops the tax rate on corporations from a high of 40% to a flat 15%. The income tax rate is also capped at 15%. Order No. 12 (renewed on Feb. 24) suspends "all tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq." This led to an immediate and dramatic inflow of cheap foreign consumer products, devastating local producers and sellers who were thoroughly unprepared to meet the challenge of their mammoth global competitors.
Clearly, the Bremer orders fundamentally altered Iraq's existing laws. For this reason, they are also illegal. Transformation of an occupied country's laws violates the Hague regulations of 1907 (ratified by the United States) and the U.S. Army's Law of Land Warfare. Indeed, in a leaked memo, the British attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, warned Prime Minister Tony Blair that "major structural economic reforms would not be authorized by international law."
With few reconstruction projects underway and with Bremer's rules favoring U.S. corporations, there has been little opportunity for Iraqis to go back to work, leaving nearly 2 million unemployed 1 1/2 years after the invasion and, many believe, greatly fueling the resistance. The Bremer orders are immoral and illegal and must be repealed to allow Iraqis to govern their own economic and political future.
Antonia Juhasz is a project director at the International Forum on Globalization in San Francisco and a Foreign Policy in Focus scholar.
End of Times article
And you think the people of Iraq will accept this system?
You think they will view this as liberation?
You think they will feel as if the war has freed them to be independent?
You think they will paste a fat smile on their faces and accept their new home-grown government as a good thing?
Every piece of rebellion from here on out, of course, will be reported as terror attacks by al Qaeda and its allies.
Welcome to real politics. As opposed to the bullshit politics that turns on whether Kerry was a hero on his boat in Vietnam and whether Bush really went AWOL as a soldier and whether Kerry's wife is a weirdo who'll insult foreign dignitaries if she's enscounced in the White House and whether Hillary wants Bush to win so she can run in 2008 before she's too old and whether the people think Kerry or Bush is a stronger leader and whether Bush will get a bigger bounce from the Republican convention than Kerry got out of Boston and whether John Edwards will garner Kerry votes in the south...
JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com
TORTURE IN IRAQ: I DON'T THINK DIANA ORTIZ IS SURPRISED
AUGUST 21, 2004. As you can see, I'm posting a number of articles on Iraq and the real plan for its future, and I'm connecting that to the long-standing tradition of slave-master colonies.
THERE WAS NEVER A PLAN TO CREATE REAL FREEDOM OR A REAL DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ.
As you read down through these articles, you'll also see that the shape of Iraq's future should come as no surprise. Of course, most Americans know nothing about the actual history of US foreign policy or the lies told to buttress it and conceal its objectives.
(I maintain that what is so for US foreign policy is also so for America on the home front.)
I'm reprinting a piece I wrote in May about torture as a tool of US foreign policy. It's certainly not meant to cover all cases. It's meant to provide a glimpse, to take the cover off the blithe assumption that our government stands for liberation of people from horrendous oppression.
When that cover story is blown, it'll be a lot easier to accept the fact that the White House has NO plan for Iraqi freedom. Never did. Their lying went all the way down to the bottom of the cesspool.
And I'm not just talking about prison torture. I'm talking about the ongoing torture that is colonization, master-slave.
MAY 9, 2004. Most of the information in this backgrounder comes from William Blum’s book, Rogue State. I print this info to give some context to the current prisoner-torture scandal erupting in Iraq, and to supply much-needed insight on the true core mind-set of the CIA and allied intelligence agencies. The examples sketched in below are by no means the entire CIA record in the field of torture.
In the 1980s, while the Afghanistan war was being fought, the CIA, on the other side of the world, was busy in Honduras. It was supplying torture equipment to a Honduran government group called Battalion 316.
Battalion 316 kidnapped citizens and tortured and killed them. The CIA improved 316’s technique, trained 316 personnel (sometimes in the US), and supplied manuals on torture.
The leader of Battalion 316 was General Gustavo Alvarez Martinez. The General actually told the US ambassador to Honduras that he was going to employ grisly Argentine "methods" to deal with subversives. Meaning: kidnapping of babies, general torture of citizens and so-called "disappearances."
The US kept up its support of the Battalion after that, and in 1983 the Reagan administration gave the good General the Legion of Merit award for "encouraging the success of democratic processes in Honduras." (Rogue State, William Blum, p.55)
So this charming band of bumbling goofballs from the CIA by way of Yale and Princeton is actually no MASH unit entertaining America with its mistakes.
Then we have Guatemala, during the 1960s-1980s period. There the torture group was called G-2. Citizens had electric shocks applied to the genitals. This was done with field telephones and generators, "supplied by uncle Sam." With instruction manuals. The CIA advised and equipped G-2. G-2 also would chop off limbs and burn flesh, and had its own crematorium for the bodies.
At least 3 G-2 chiefs during this period were on the CIA payroll.
In 1989 in Guatemala, an American nun, Diana Ortiz, was kidnapped and repeatedly raped and tortured with burning cigarettes, and was put in a pit with corpses. The apparent chief of her torturers had fair skin and was referred to as Alejandro. He cursed in English. Ortiz lived. In 1996. she obtained, on a FOIA request to the US State Department, a document dated 1990.
It said: "VERY IMPORTANT: We need to close the loop on the issue of the 'North American' named by Ortiz as being involved in the case...The EMBASSY IS VERY SENSITIVE ON THIS ISSUE, but it is an issue we will have to respond to publicly..."
The next two pages of this document were blacked out.
Alfred McCoy's published writing on the drug trade reveals some key facts. Within two years of the CIA moving into Afghanistan (1979), it provided enough assistance to the drug growers and processors (both Afghan and Pakistani) to supply 60 percent of the heroin USED IN AMERICA.
McCoy: "During this decade of wide-open drug dealing [in Afghanistan], the US Drug Enforcement Agency in Islamabad failed to instigate major seizures or arrests...US officials had refused to investigate charges of heroin dealing by its Afghan allies 'because US narcotics policy in Afghanistan has been subordinated to the war against Soviet influence there.'
McCoy: "In 1995, the former CIA director of the Afghan operation, Charles Cogan, admitted that the CIA had indeed sacrificed the drug war to fight the Cold War. 'Our main mission was to do as much damage as possible to the Soviets. We didn't really have the resources or the time to devote to an investigation of the drug trade...I don't think we need to apologize for this. Every situation has its fallout...'"
Let's see. The CIA, together with its underling, the Pakistan intelligence service, ACTIVELY HELPS TO EXPAND TREMENDOUSLY THE HEROIN BUSINESS IN AFGHANISTAN. Then it and the DEA do nothing to intercede and shut it down. THEN, all that heroin gets on the streets of America and twists the lives of kids. Thousands and thousands and thousands of kids. This is called FALL OUT.
Do you really think the current control/participation by the CIA in the torture of Iraqi prisoners is a brief aberration from its standard practices?
DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY ARE THE US GOVERNMENT GOALS FOR IRAQ?
JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com
WHAT DOES THE DEBATE ON IRAQ CONCEAL?
AUGUST 21, 2004. Let's list a few of the issues around which debate has centered:
DID SADDAM HAVE WMD? (Of course he did; various corporations and governments, including the US, gave them to him.)
WAS SADDAM CONNECTED TO 9/11?
WAS HE A THREAT TO THE US?
DID THE US GOVERNMENT HAVE A REAL PLAN FOR POST-WAR IRAQ?
SHOULD THE US HAVE GATHERED UN PLUS OTHER-NATION SUPPORT FOR THE WAR?
DID US INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES PRESENT BUSH WITH INCORRECT ASSESSMENTS OF IRAQI WMD?
IF SO, WAS THIS JUST POOR INTELL, OR WAS IT CREATED BY WHITE HOUSE ORDERS?
SHOULD WE SEEK A MASSIVE TROOP WITHDRAWAL SOON?
DOES KERRY REALLY HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEW OF THE WAR THAN BUSH?
IS KERRY FIT TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT?
DID HE LIE ABOUT HIS SWIFT-BOAT HEROICS?
WAS HE IN CAMBODIA?
DID BUSH GO AWOL?
DID BUSH INTENTIONALLY LIE TO THE AMEICAN PEOPLE ABOUT REASONS FOR GOING INTO IRAQ?
IF SO, HOW MANY TIMES?
Of course, there are more of these issues.
But behind them is a central fact. The future of Iraq is plotted as a colony.
A colony of delusioned slaves. Slaves to foreign interests who will literally own the country.
This was the idea all along.
It doesn't merge well with the slogan of bringing freedom and democracy to a formerly imprisoned people.
And if the public somehow realized, in their bones and brains, the true plan for Iraq's future, the public would see the depth of the lies that have been told. The public might even connect those lies to the deaths and maimings of American soldiers. As in, WHY ARE WE THERE? WHY DID OUR PEOPLE DIE?
However, if you look at the history of US foreign policy, you will notice that, time after time, the government has launched ops to secure dictators in place. Iraq would follow in that path. What is happening and will happen to the people of Iraq should be no surprise.
It's part of a pattern.
But who cares about that? It's too weird. It's too grand a deception. It contradicts too many happy slogans about America. It incriminates presidents and Congresses from both sides of the aisle over a long, long period.
Better to focus on the swift boats and whether Kerry's was under fire.
Better to kick around the little details.
If you say the history of American foreign policy is the enemy of America, you confuse too many simpletons.
You start to expose the ugly, ugly cynicism that has been festering in Washington for a couple of centuries.
TELL THE SUCKERS WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR. EVENTUALLY THEY'LL BELIEVE THAT ANYTHING WE DO IS ABOUT FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY. WHAT WE DO=FREEDOM. IF AN AMERICAN FLAG IS WAVING, IT MUST BE ABOUT FREEDOM.
There is a very good reason that foreign policy never figures in any presidential election campaign---I'm talking about the real details of foreign policy.
It's a complete sea of lies.
Iraq is no exception.
The only real question left on the table about the future of Iraq is this: which foreign interests will own the people and their country? Will these interests mostly be American, as part of the demented drive for US world empire? Or will they spread out over a range of avarious snakes from various nations---in the overall globalist push for control of the world's many by the world's few?
JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com
WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON IN IRAQ
AUGUST 21, 2004. From the Inter Press Service---several situations are described in which massive amounts of money are missing in Iraq.
This story does not seem to be getting traction in the press so far. It hasn’t risen to the level of a real scandal. Apparently, billions of dollars gone into the night are not that important.
It’s automatically assumed that “bookkeeping errors” or “bookkeeping errors” or even “bookkeeping errors” are responsible. Whereas, people like me fantasize that, if money is missing, someone stole it. Someone has it. Someone has stashed it. Someone can spend it.
People like me go even farther. We believe that the people who have stolen billions of dollars would use that money for bad purposes. It’s like the mafia. Do you think those guys take their profits and give them to charity? They’re Robin Hoods? They replant forests and donate to people who’ve been made homeless by hurricanes?
We now know the so-called transfer of power from the US provisional coalition to the Iraqis was worse than a sham. It was, essentially, the creation of an IMF-type colony in which Iraq will be owned, lock, stock, and barrel by foreign investors. Does that sound like “bringing democracy to Iraq?” The accompanying naked theft of billions of dollars makes perfect sense. It’s all part of the loot and pillage philosophy.
“Steal everything you can, boys. We’ll eventually get this joint up and running as a slave state.”
You want evidence that the White House never intended to create democracy in Iraq? You want a real campaign issue? You want proof that the US media have no interest in exposing the truth about the Iraq op? Or do you want bookkeeping errors and software problems and glitches and debates about the “apparent lack of an effective plan to occupy post-war Iraq?”
Do you really expect that bozo Kerry to dig into this situation and expose what’s going on? He’s committed, as all presidential candidates are, to globalization, and Iraq is part of that mix---when you realize that globalization means grand theft and death and starvation and illness and dislocation and outside ownership of nations.
Kerry knows the theme. He's helped play it for a very long time on the floor of the US Senate.
The parameters of the acceptable debate about Iraq exclude these factors. They’re too hot to handle. They reveal too much. They vector in on the heart of the matter. Masters and slaves.
'Staggering Amount' of Cash Missing In Iraq
by Emad Mekay
WASHINGTON - Three U.S. senators have called on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to account for 8.8 billion dollars entrusted to the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq earlier this year but now gone missing.
In a letter Thursday, Senators Ron Wyden of Oregon, Byron L Dorgan of North Dakota and Tom Harkin of Iowa, all opposition Democrats, demanded a "full, written account" of the money that was channeled to Iraqi ministries and authorities by the CPA, which was the governing body in the occupied country until Jun. 30.
The loss was uncovered in an audit by the CPA's inspector general. It has not yet been released publicly and was initially reported on the website of journalist and retired U.S. Army Col David Hackworth.
The CPA was terminated at the end of July to make way for an interim Iraqi government, which is in turn scheduled to be replaced by an elected body early in 2005. "We are requesting a full, written account of the 8.8 billion dollars transferred earlier this year from the CPA to the Iraqi ministries, including the amount each ministry received and the way in which the ministry spent the money," said the letter.
The senators also requested that the Pentagon designate a date by which it will install adequate oversight and financial and contractual controls over money it spends in Iraq. They accused the CPA of transferring the "staggering sum of money" with no written rules or guidelines to ensure adequate control over it. They pointed to "disturbing findings" from the inspector general's report that the payrolls of some Iraqi ministries, then under CPA control, were padded with thousands of ghost employees.
They refer to an example in which CPA paid the salaries of 74,000 security guards although the actual number of employees could not be validated. The report says that in one case some 8,000 guards were listed on a payroll but only 603 real individuals could be counted.
"Such enormous discrepancies raise very serous questions about potential fraud, waste and abuse," added the letter.
This is not the first time that U.S. financial conduct in Iraq has come under fire, specifically over funds slated for reconstruction after the U.S.-led attack in March 2003, which then went unaccounted for. In June, British charity Christian Aid said at least 20 billion dollars in oil revenues and other Iraqi funds intended to rebuild the country have disappeared from banks administered by the CPA.
Watchdog groups have complained before about the opaque nature of the CPA's handling of Iraqi money and the lack of transparency of U.S. and Iraqi officials.
Halliburton, a giant U.S. company that has been awarded 8.2 billion dollars worth of contracts from the Defense department to provide support services such as meals, shelter, laundry and Internet connections for U.S. soldiers in Iraq, has been targeted for allegedly overcharging for those services.
"Continued failures to account for funds, such as the 8.8 billion dollars of concern here - and the refusal, so far, of the Pentagon to take corrective action are a disservice to the American taxpayer, the Iraqi people and to our men and women in uniform," the senators wrote.
Groups critical of the lack of transparency in the CPA's spending have been particularly angry that the authority used Iraqi money to pay for questionable contracts -- some awarded without a public tendering process -- with U.S. companies.
Washington initially restricted the most lucrative reconstruction contracts in Iraq to gigantic U.S. firms that appeared able to reap huge profits, fueling accusations the Bush administration was seeking to benefit a select few U.S. companies rather than find the best, and possibly the cheapest, options to help rebuild Iraq.
After loud complaints, the contracting process was officially opened to firms from other nations, but many of them still insist they are not competing on a level playing field with U.S. businesses.
A Pentagon spokeswoman told IPS that the CPA administered the money transparently and that Iraqi ministries used the eight billion dollars in ways that directly "benefited the people of Iraq."
"The CPA provided these funds to Iraqi ministries from the Development Fund for Iraq through a transparent and open budget process," said Lt Col Rose-Ann L Lynch of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. "This is Iraqi money -- revenue from such sources as oil sales -- not U.S. funds."
The official added that the money was used to pay the salaries of hundreds of thousands of government employees, teachers, health workers, administrators and government pensioners, as well as to fund the Iraqi Defense ministry and police forces.
end of Inter Press article
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------