November 04, 2007

Musharraf consolidating Pakistani "history" using Kissinger, US State Department and MEDIA failures to soothe his way.


BANKERS 10, Pakistani citizens -10


Musharraf Tightens The Reins, a recent timeline

I am NOT even going to touch the Benazir Bhutto "problem", as it will merely muddy the waters - as it is CLEARLY meant to do. The Pakistani "problem" is of long standing - and has to do with an agricultural society which depended on WORLD BANK loans and now has faced eight years of military rule as a result of mendacious profit taking by corrupt Pakistani politicians. This has all been complicated by an expensive nuclear architecture and the trappings of industrialization. A real corporatocracy HIT has been taken and endured by the Pakistani people, STILL without real leadership.

Creating a bit of unrest using false flag operations and blaming it on fanatic "suicide" bombers, Musharraf has created 'grounds' for imposing a state of emergency. First, he created a problem and then he came up with a solution to solve it. SOUND FAMILIAR??
False Flag! "Suicide" blast kills seven near Musharraf's HQ
Agence France-Presse
2007-10-31 03:50:00



A suicide bomber blew himself up close to where Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was holding talks at army headquarters in the garrison city of Rawalpindi on Tuesday, killing seven people, officials said.

The blast happened at a police checkpost a less than a kilometre (half a mile) from where Musharraf was holding talks with top government officials about a spate of attacks, including a recent bid to kill Benazir Bhutto.

The election was approaching and there is nothing but a near miss attempt at the incumbent leaders life to boost his rating in opinion polls. Don't think that Musharraf and his backers would shy away from sacrificing a few people to achieve re-election.

Friday:

U.S. Secretary of State Rice is making noise that Musharraf must stick to 'Democracy' and not declare a state of emergency. This to bring the disgraced but U.S.-supported Benazair Bhutto back to power.

"I think it would be quite obvious that the United States would not be supportive of extra-constitutional means," Rice said. "Pakistan needs to prepare for and hold free and fair elections."

Also Friday, U.S. Centcom commander Fallon visits Pakistan for talks.


Both know that further violence in Pakistan, fueled in parts by the U.S. conflict with the Pashtun in Afghanistan and Waziristan, will exascebate the situation and make it more likely that Musharraf will be obliged to take the step.


But then, the very same day, the U.S. kills another 10+ people within Pakistans border:

The explosion that killed 10 Friday in the restive border region of North Waziristan seemed likely to exacerbate an already turbulent situation in Pakistan. According to witness reports, the explosion was caused by a missile attack that obliterated a house near a madrassa, or religious school, that has been associated with Taliban commanders.

The Pakistani military, which has been fighting a losing battle in the tribal region, denied that it was involved in the attack. Many Pakistanis quickly blamed Washington, saying the attack bore the hallmarks of previous strikes by U.S. drones.

Saturday:

Gen. Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency in Pakistan on Saturday, suspending the constitution, replacing the chief justice before a crucial Supreme Court ruling on his future as president, and cutting communications in the capital.

Is U.S. foreign policy as observed in the above:

  • non-existant,
  • uncoordinated,
  • incompetent or,
  • deceitful?
  • still a mess after Kissinger's audacious meddling 35 years ago???


The election was approaching and there is nothing but a near miss attempt at the incumbent leaders life to boost his rating in opinion polls. Don't think that Musharraf and his backers would shy away from sacrificing a few people to achieve re-election.

What is IT? Let's take a walk down memory lane .. and as we do so, we take into account a BANKRUPT US, is fighting wars on six fronts: Irak, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey/Iran/Kurd border areas AND now Pakistan.

What about that big stick? There will be bombs and missiles. There's no question about that. There will be raids on bin Laden's camps led by the Delta Force. The Taliban may be driven into the caves of the Hindu Kush. But there are other ways to punish and kill. Ways that are silent, discreet and quite lethal. Trade sanctions that stop the flow of even the most basic humanitarian goods, including medical supplies, food, and sanitation equipment. The sanctions will be leveled not only on Afghanistan, but any country that refused to comply with US demands. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has indicated that there may be as many as 60 countries that fit the description.

~ Seal It With a Check, Cashbox Diplomacy, 26 September, 2001

By Jeffrey St. Clair and Alexander Cockburn



The huge ncursion by Turkish troops (*estimated at 100,000) into northern Iraq is only being held off by the fact that the Turkish President will meet President Bush in Washington on November 5.

After that, all bets are off. Now, the other "end" of the Middle East quagmire has exploded with the imposition of "emergency measures" by Pakistan's President Musharraf.

Mr Musharraf has blacked out the media, suspended the Constitution, and deployed troops in the capital, Karachi.

Mr Bush has expressed his "disappointment".

A perfectly horrendous storm is brewing, with the possibility of a blow up at both ends of the Middle East being added to fast growing fears over the "health" of the US banking and financial system.

Let's face it: The United States cannot handle the fires it has so carefully set by playing with what it sees as profitable matches. BuZh is Wall Street's banker; Henry Paulson is presiding over the US Treasury Department. Chickenhawks have taken over all the adminstrative offices at the White House, the Pentagon, the State Department .. even the Department of Justice!! And now the world, undeterred by the reading of the US propaganda machine on their television networks and the US hickenhawk press are reading this latest installment of world destablization caused by a corporatocracy spinning out of fire-fighting zones in HORROR.

What is that they are seeing right in front of their faces with longer memories than those turning on CNN today??

Musharraf imposes former Citibank official as Pakistan's prime minister
Pakistan's US-backed military strongman, president and armed forces chief Pervez Musharraf, has orchestrated the installation of Shaukat Aziz, a former top official at New York's Citibank, as the country's prime minister.
URL: http://www.wsws.org/articles/testdir/sep2004/paki-s03.shtml - 17
So, is the US moving towards a more useful alliance with India (obstenably to further "contain" a growing Russian/Chinese/unaligned presence in the Middle East?

India ‘regrets’ imposition of emergency

* BJP urges Indian govt to pressure Musharraf for restoration of democracy
* Other political parties say emergency aimed at stalling democracy
* Indian military on ‘state of vigil’ alert along LoC after emergency

By Iftikhar Gilani


NEW DELHI: India on Saturday reacted guardedly to the imposition of emergency in Pakistan saying it regrets “difficult times” in the neighbouring country, even as it expressed hoped for a quick return of normalcy and democracy in Islamabad.

External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and discussed the political situation in Pakistan in the aftermath of the imposition of a state of emergency by President Pervez Musharraf.

“We regret the difficult times that Pakistan is passing through. We trust that conditions of normalcy will soon return, permitting Pakistan’s transition to stability and democracy to continue,” External Affairs Ministry spokesman Navtej Sarna said.

Meanwhile, Minister of State for External Affairs Anand Sharma underlined that India hoped and trusted that stability and democracy will return to Pakistan. “We hope and we trust so,” Sharma told reporters when asked about the prospects of stability in Pakistan.

Opposition condemns: However, in contrast to the government’s reserved statement, the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) condemned the imposition of emergency and urged the Indian government to pressure President Musharraf for restoration of democracy, while the ruling Congress Party hoped that the “present turbulence” would settle down soon.

The Congress Party’s Media Department Chairman Veerappa Moily said India is always concerned about the situation in Pakistan, as it is part of the subcontinent.

The Left parties described it as a setback for democracy, saying it was a “pre-meditated blow” to stall a possible Supreme Court ruling against President Musharraf’s military regime.

“Musharraf has shown his true colours as a dictator,” BJP spokesman Rajiv Pratap Rudy said, adding that the clamping of an emergency in Pakistan would impact the entire region. “Whatever rudiments of democracy existed in Pakistan have been eliminated by this act,” he said.

“The government of India should condemn the act in strong words and talk to the international community to put pressure on Musharraf for restoration of democracy,” he said.

CPI, RSP reactions: “The people of Pakistan will not support such an anti-democratic step,” Communist Party of India-Marxist General Secretary Prakash Karat said. CPI General Secretary AB Bardhan described the emergency as “a very unfortunate development”. “It is aimed at stalling the Pakistani people’s march towards democracy,” he added.

His Forward Bloc counterpart Debabrata Biswas said the move went against the “people’s strong urge for democracy. If the military rulers think they can safeguard their interests like this, they are mistaken. They cannot be safe after this.”

Revolutionary Socialist Party leader Abani Roy said the imposition of emergency was intended to “kill whatever democracy was left in Pakistan. Whenever there has been a democratic movement in that country, the military rulers have undertaken such measures.”

State of vigil: The development has also triggered concern in India’s military establishment, prompting a “state of vigil” alert along the Line of Control, a senior Kashmir military commander told AFP on condition of anonymity


Nepal government concerned over developments in Pakistan

<>

Kathmandu - The Nepalese government Sunday expressed serious concerns over the imposition of emergency rule in Pakistan and suspension of its constitution.

'The government of Nepal is upset with the current political development in Pakistan,' Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala said in a statement.

'It is a matter of great concern to all of us in the region to see that the ray of hope for democracy has been eclipsed with the imposition of emergency by the present regime,' Koirala said.

The developments in Pakistan have also been criticised by Nepalese political parties.

Two of Nepal's biggest parties Nepali Congress and the moderate Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist said the development in Pakistan was contrary to the norms and values of democracy.

They said the measures adopted by President Pervez Musharraf would push Pakistan toward further political instability.

The two parties also called on the Pakistani government to lift its ban on independent press and end its control on the judiciary.



From whence the crisis??



Today, Pakistan’s upsurge of the GDP has created the same kind of rich-poor gap as experienced in India and China after they posted high growth rates. The Communist Party Congress that opened in October 2007 in Beijing began with the warning that nearly 20 years of high rates have impoverished 700 million people in the rural areas while the rest of the 1.3 billion were enjoying big incomes in the fast expanding cities. In India, the same kind of trend has led to fall of governments with good macro-economic achievements. The Chinese have got scared of high growth rates and are trying to cut them back; in India, inflation has forced the state bank to raise interest rates. Freedome and regulation go hand in hand if you wantt o run a system successfully.
~ from A definitive account of Pakistan's agriculture by Khaled Ahmed, Agriculture in Pakistan: Change and Progress, 1947-2005; by Mahmood Hasan Khan, Vangard Books


Kissinger meddling in Pakistan Legacy

How’s life? Kissinger, Buddha ask each other

Express news service

Posted online: Sunday , November 04, 2007 at 12:00:00
Updated: Sunday , November 04, 2007
Kolkata, November 3 It was as if sworn ideological foes turned polite friends and discussed “life in general” when former US Secretary of State Dr Henry Kissinger dropped in at Writers’ Buildings to meet state Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee on Saturday.

Now a Nobel Peace laureate, Kissinger was much hated by Indian Communists for his role in Vietnam and later for siding with Pakistan in 1971.

Kissinger met Bhattacharjee for over 50 minutes at the Chief Minister's office.

Emerging from the meeting, Kissinger had no comments to offer as the Chief Minister escorted him to the VIP lift.

And all that a smiling Bhattacharjee said was: “We talked about life in general.”

But sources said Kissinger and Bhattacharjee, the man responsible for bringing in a change in the thinking of the Marxists, discussed current issues like the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal and the prospects of US investments in West Bengal.

CPM sources said just as Bhattacharjee had taken some time to impress upon his fellow Marxists the need to be realistic about attracting investments, Saturday's meeting between the two signaled that old enmity must yield to the need for development.

“He is the chief minister. If he (Kissinger) had wanted to meet (party state secretary) Biman Bose, could we have rejected his request? After all, he is a foreign dignitary," said Benoy Konar, the septuagenarian Central Committee member known to be a hardliner.

Being a weekend, Writer's bore a deserted look barring the first floor corridor outside the chief minister's chamber. There, over a dozen policemen and commandos maintained a strict security cordon, while the tea-bearers had turned out in white shirt and trousers, a change from their usual Communist casualness.

Kissinger entered Writers' at noon, and went straight to the chief minister's ante-chamber. Party sources said it was a one-to-one meeting, following which Bhattacharjee briefed his party leaders Prakash Karat and Biman Bose.


A FROM A HEAD, THROUGH A HEAD, TO A HEAD
By F. S. Aijazuddin
Oxford University Press, Karachi

You may think the title of this book by Fakir Syed Aijazuddin is somewhat bizarre, but he has invested his narration of a diplomatic event with an element of excitement that makes it read like a thriller. The event did possess inherent tension and excitement to begin with, but it has taken all the author’s skill to put it together with a rare combination of what is realistically prosaic and the eminently readable.

No single event in Cold War diplomacy has had such a dramatic impact on international politics as Dr Henry Kissinger’s now legendary secret visit to Beijing in July 1971 through the good offices of Pakistan, its then President Yahya Khan and its ambassador in Washington, Agha Hilaly.


For almost two years before that Yahya Khan acted as conduit for a relay of messages between President Nixon and Premier Zhou Enlai, with no one the wiser about the operation. It can certainly be ranked as one of the best-kept secrets of the world, and Aijazuddin’s rendering has made it as interesting as it deserves to be.


At that time the United States was terribly chary of communist regimes, whether Chinese or Russian or Cuban. At the same time, prescient and wise as he was, Nixon felt that this could not last for ever, and that, sooner or later, America would have to deal with these regimes at less inimical levels. He wanted to be the first President of the USA to do so, and during a visit to Lahore in 1969 he sounded out President Yahya Khan if he could help. Yahya Khan was all too willing, and this is how the exchange of messages started.


Years later we all came to know how the matter proceeded - how Kissinger was flown from the Chaklala air base at Rawalpindi in a PIA aircraft to Beijing, when everyone thought he was resting in Nathiagali, where he had to extend his stay by a day ostensibly because of stomach trouble. The whole affair acquired a cloak-and-dagger atmosphere, because of the fact that his double (a look-alike he had brought with him from Washington) did go to Nathiagali as a ruse to hide the real Kissinger’s actual movements. Incidentally, the real Kissinger, in a show of empathy, did develop stomach trouble through eating too many mangoes!

Those who deal with diplomacy — even secret diplomacy — may find it hard to believe that all these messages, which just a handful of persons were privy to, were hand written. Those in the know were President Nixon, Kissinger, Pakistan’s Ambassador in Washington, Agha Hilaly, President Yahya Khan, the Chinese Ambassador to Islamabad and Premier Zhou Enlai. That is why the messages could be kept secret from the prying eyes of the world and those (for instance the USSR) who would have been interested in upsetting the plan.


The author had the good fortune to get his hands on the file maintained personally by Yahya Khan and labelled "The Chinese Connection," which contained 49 secret documents on the total operation covering the period from 15 October 1969 to 7 August 1971. The book casts revealing light on a natural and very human aspect of Yahya Khan’s personality, who derived almost a childish delight from the secrecy involved regarding the planning and the ruses and stratagems involved in keeping the matter hidden from everyone else in the world. In an age of instantaneous communication, the leaders of three powers had reverted to the traditional diplomatic methods that was centuries old.


The book also throws light on the volatile politics of the subcontinent at that time, the gory happenings in East Pakistan, the emergence of Bangladesh and India’s blatant involvement in the process, the degree of American interest in saving the situation for Pakistan as much as was possible, and the extent to which Chinese help was available to prevent the impending break-up of Pakistan, and other circumstances of the fateful year of 1971. In that respect it is a valuable addition to the existent literature on the subject.


This is Aijazuddin’s first book on a political topic of international import. So far his fame as a writer has been confined to the cultural and artistic fields. Although he is a chartered accountant by profession his recent academic research and outcome shows that he possesses a rare combination of commerce and scholarship.

Hafizur Rahman


Washington, D.C., June 29, 2005 - President Nixon and his national security adviser Henry Kissinger saw India as a "Soviet stooge" during the South Asia crisis of 1971, downplayed reports of Pakistani genocide in what is now Bangladesh, and even suggested that China intervene militarily on Pakistan's side, according to startling new documentation from White House files and tapes contained in the State Department's Foreign Relations of the United States series and reposted today by the National Security Archive.


Earlier this week, the Office of the Historian at the State Department hosted a major conference on U.S. policy in South Asia focusing on the 1971 India-Pakistan war triggered by the crisis over Bangladesh. (Note 1) Much of the discussion focused on, and flowed from, a new volume of documentation edited by Louis J. Smith for the FRUS series. (Note 2) Besides including the usual cables and memoranda, the editors of this volume made significant use of the White House tapes and the transcripts of Henry Kissinger's telephone conversations. "This volume deserves the attention of the widest possible readership because of its fascinating, sometimes startling, revelations on Nixon administration policy. It gives the reader an unparalleled perspective on the inner workings of White House policy throughout the crisis," said Dr. William Burr, senior analyst at the National Security Archive, who attended the conference.


Triggered by East Pakistan's (now Bangladesh) quest for independence, the 1971 crisis quickly raised human rights issues because of what White House officials characterized as a "reign of terror" (Note 3) orchestrated by Pakistani forces. While consular officials in Dacca, East Pakistan privately criticized the U.S. government's "failure to denounce atrocities," (Note 4) Nixon and Kissinger did not want "to get [the] West Pakistanis turned against us," in part because President Yahya was providing a secret communication link for their quest for rapprochement with China. (Note 5) The close China-Pakistan relationship was central to Nixon's wish to "tilt" U.S. policy toward Pakistan in part to show Beijing that Washington would support its allies. (Note 6) With Pakistani refugees fleeing into India, the crisis quickly turned into a clash between India and Pakistan. Quickly defining and dramatizing a regional national/ethnic crisis in geo-political terms, Nixon and Kissinger saw India as a Soviet client state that was determined to weaken Pakistan fatally. China, however, had a close relationship with Pakistan and Nixon wanted to "tilt" U.S. policy toward Pakistan to show Beijing that Washington would support its allies.


As the crisis turned to war, Nixon and Kissinger saw the event as a Cold War confrontation which could involve a China-Soviet conflict and U.S. confrontation with the Soviet Union. "The documents show that Nixon and Kissinger overlooked the regional, ethnic, and national dimensions of the crisis and instead saw it in terms of the Cold War and macho terms, which made the crisis even more dangerous; they risked a China-Soviet conflict so they could demonstrate what they thought was toughness and resolve," commented Dr. Burr. (Note 7)


Some of the most fascinating documents in the volume concern Nixon and Kissinger's reactions to developments just before and during the war and their discussions of policy options. Among the highlights:

  • Their reactions to Nixon's meetings with Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on November 5, 1971. According to Kissinger, the "Indians are bastards anyway. They are starting a war there … [W]hile [Gandhi] was a bitch, we got what we wanted to … She will not be able to go home and say that the United States didn't give her a warm reception and therefore in despair she's got to go to war." (Note 8)
  • Their agreement that China could put pressure on India: " I think we've got to tell [the Chinese] that some movement on their part … toward the Indian border could be very significant." On December 8, Nixon and Kissinger agreed to transfer planes to Pakistan and to tell the Chinese that "if you are ever going to move this is the time." Kissinger noted the danger that may arise "if our bluff is called." (Note 9)
  • The controversial CIA report that led Kissinger and Nixon to believe that India intended to dismember Pakistan and destroy its armed forces. (Note 10)
  • Later on December 8, Nixon and Kissinger decide to send an aircraft carrier and other naval forces into the Bay of Bengal in order to prevent a "Soviet stooge, supported by Soviet arms" from overrunning Pakistan. (Note 11)
  • Interpreting the regional crisis in geo-strategic terms, Kissinger justifies intervention to "prevent the West Pakistani army from being destroyed. And secondly to retain our Chinese arm. And thirdly, to prevent a complete collapse of the world's psychological balance of power, which will be produced if a combination of the Soviet Union and the Soviet armed client state can tackle [Pakistan] without anybody doing anything." While U.S. action could jeopardize the developing détente with Moscow, Kissinger suggested to Nixon that "your card [is] your willingness to jeopardize it." (Note 12)
  • Nixon's hot line message to Brezhnev on 10 December urging the Soviets " in the strongest possible terms to restrain India with which … you have great influence and for whose actions you must share responsibility." (Note 13)
  • On December 10, Kissinger delicately encourages the Chinese to take action against India guaranteeing U.S. support if the Soviets retaliate: "if the People's Republic were to consider the situation on the Indian subcontinent a threat to security, and if it took measures to protect its security, the US would oppose efforts of others to interfere with the People's Republic." (Note 14)
  • On December 12, Kissinger tells Nixon that by taking a tough stand with the Soviets he was making a "typical Nixon plan. I mean it's bold… But my view is that if we do nothing there's a certainty of disaster. This way there is a high possibility of one, but at least we're coming off like men." With Beijing's UN ambassador calling for an urgent meeting in New York with White House officials, Kissinger was sure that Beijing was "going to move. No question, they're going to move." If the Chinese intervene, Nixon asked "what do we do if the Soviets move against them? Start lobbing nuclear weapons." Kissinger later answered that "We don't have to lob nuclear weapons. We have to go on alert… We may have to put forces in. We may have to give them bombing assistance." This will provide an "opportunity to clean up Vietnam at that point" by giving an ultimatum to Hanoi and blockading Haiphong harbor. (Note 15)
  • Nixon was not as sure as Kissinger that Beijing and Moscow would go to war and when General Alexander Haig met with the Chinese later that day, Nixon and Kissinger learned that the Chinese had not made any military decisions but would call for a cease-fire and mutual troop withdrawal and support a stand-still cease-fire if necessary.
  • Even before they realized that Beijing was not going to intervene, the Soviets had assured the White House that the Indians were not going to attack West Pakistan and that they were working with Prime Minister Gandhi on a cease-fire. Ever the courtier, Kissinger praised Nixon for his willingness to confront the Soviets: "What you did this morning Mr. President was a heroic thing." On December 16, Pakistani forces surrendered in East Pakistan and a cease-fire took effect the next day. (Note 16)

There is much more to the story and readers are encouraged to peruse this extraordinary compilation. Besides the print/electronic editions of this volume, the State Department historians have released an electronic supplement of scanned documents, the first ever in the FRUS series. (Note 17) CLIP (footnotes omitted - you GET the point)


Henry Kissinger: War Criminal or Old-Fashioned Murderer?

Incredibly, Henry Kissinger—the man who rivals Pol Pot for the dubious honor of being the person responsible for the death of the largest number of innocent people in South East Asia (and far surpasses Pol Pot in criminality when one factors in Kissinger's various levels of responsibility for wholesale slaughter and repression in other parts of the world)—still wields significant power in the United States; but his role as eager facilitator of mass murder, totalitarian repression and other atrocities is never discussed in polite society. Although Kissinger is a frequent guest on Nightline, where he is treated as a harmless and venerable elder statesman, his friend Ted Koppel has never brought up the topic of Kissinger's responsibility for the horrifying deaths of so many in Asia, Latin America and other areas of the world. It is safe to assume that Koppel has no intention of doing so in the future.


In fact, Kissinger's continuing influence over what the US government does, and what is reported about what the government does, can clearly be seen is a relatively recent media event: Kissinger's significant behind-the-scene role in effecting CNN's retraction of the "Tailwind" story.

CNN's ostensible justification for the retraction is laid out in the compromise-ridden Abrams/Kohler Report. *snip*


CNN has, however, said what allegedly was not a factor: CNN adamantly denies that the unprecedentedly quick retraction had anything to do with the pressure applied by Kissinger, Colin Powell and other powerful government people —thus leaving a vacuum at the center of the rationale for this whole embarrassing and unnecessary reversal. CNN would much rather leave this incident hanging with no explanation than admit it left two producers to twist in the wind because of management's cowardice in the face of pressure from powerful government-connected people. And CNN would evidently much rather be in the good graces of the government than defend it's dubious claims to any kind of journalistic integrity.

The A/K report does not claim that new evidence had come to light to contradict what Smith and Oliver reported; rather, the report, and it's co-author David Kohler, claim that the very evidence Kohler had found compelling and legally defensible was now somehow neither, even though that evidence had not changed. CNN's way of dealing with this seeming paradox was to imply Abram's sole authorship of the report: the CNN webpage where the full text of the A/K Report resides makes no mention of Kohler's name or of his role in the writing and preparing of the report. There was no reversal, CNN implies, because the evidence was being looked at by a different person who reached a different conclusion about the worthiness of that evidence. Kohler's role in the A/K report went down the memory hole. *snip*


CNN has ensured that that story will probably never be told.

The media, once again, fell all over itself to become apologists for the Pentagon and the National Security state—some going so far as to claim that CNN admitted the story was "false", when in fact, CNN's retraction, while pusillanimous and abject, went no further than to say that story "could not be supported".

It should be noted that Smith and Oliver repeatedly asked to interview Kissinger for the story; Kissinger repeatedly refused. Clearly, Kissinger would rather work his magic behind the scenes and not be forced to answer questions about his role in the affair. Amazingly, many in the mainstream media viewed Kissinger's outrage at the Tailwind story as evidence that the Tailwind story was not true.


See also Alexander Cockburn's article on Kissinger's role in the affair: The Press Devours Its Own


*snip* One does not need to look back to Stalinist Russia to find examples of countries where crossing the establishment could and often does mean a death sentence—there are a multitide of examples of such countries today (many of them U.S. client states). But, again, it need not be pointed out that the U.S. itself is not one of them. One may be ostrasized, marginalized, and effectively silenced, but obviously not murdered. The personal risk is real for any journalist who steps out of line, but it is comparatively small.


Still, the courage of journalists such as April Oliver, Jack Smith, Robert Parry and Gary Webb deserves recognition.



For further insight into what CNN thinks qualifies as "objectivity" when covering our government, see Alexander Cockburn's article on CNN's use of US PSYOPS operatives as interns at CNN's Atlanta news headquarters. (See FAIR's Action Alert here.) CNN's rah-rah stance on US troops during the Gulf war; CNN's sponsoring of the Clinton administration's propaganda seminar that attempted to set forth the reasons for (and only for, not against) initiating another bombing campaign against the people of Iraq; CNN's quick retraction of the well-researched and justifiable Tailwind story to accomodate the hurt feelings of the likes of Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell, and right-wing flak-hack Reed Irvine (whose "Accuracy in Media" flak-tank came about as a result of the right's desperate attempt to deny the My Lai massacre and justify the US's illegal invasion of, and continued presence in, Vietnam)—you decide...is CNN a prime (though certainly not lone) example of an adjunct to government?


The latest obscenity:

It strikes me as outrageous, but sadly indicative of the pro-American bias of the media (even the media that claims, as CNN does, to be international and thus relatively free of such bias), that CNN would conduct the following interview with Henry Kissinger - and print the transcript on their web site - and yet never even allude to the fact that Kissinger has a long history of terrorist sponsorship that makes even Osama bin Laden's pale in comparison.

The death toll for which Kissinger bares responsibility in Indochina alone is in the millions, and Kissinger and Nixon were the ones who expanded that terror to neighboring states, where they, without warning or authorization, deliberately bombed populated areas. The killing in East Timor, for which Kissinger and Ford promised and delivered US backing, reached genocidal levels and, with the help of Daniel Patrick Moynihan in the UN, the Ford administration managed to keep the facts of that genocide off the world agenda, as Moynihan bragged in his memoir A Dangerous Place *snip* Kissinger, Moynihan and Ford made sure the money and armaments to carry out this genocide never ceased flowing from the US and its allies, a policy continued by every succeeding US administration, up to and including Clinton's.

The Taliban, Say Kissinger below, must "dismantle the structure of terrorism" as well as "give up this one man [bin Laden]"; the US, naturally, is obliged to do neither, and the man they ought to be giving up to the docks of an international court on crimes against humanity is instead living well and giving color commentary on terrorism, such as what follows, for CNN and the rest of the complicit mainstream media.


Kissinger: 'We can't tolerate this'

(CNN) -- Henry Kissinger, U.S. secretary of state and national security adviser during the Nixon administration, played a large role in U.S. policy during the latter part of the Vietnam War. He talked with CNN's Paula Zahn on Monday about last week's terrorist attacks on U.S. targetsand offered his perspective on the road ahead.

CNN: Let's start off with the latest development. We know that Pakistan's top spy and a former ambassador to Afghanistan have gone to the Taliban and issued a demand: Give us Osama bin Laden in the next three days or face military action. What's going to happen as a result of that demand?

KISSINGER: Well, I think it's an ultimatum, and if they refuse, there will certainly be military action. But I believe we have to go after the Taliban anyway. They've been supporting these terrorist activities all over the area and all over the world, and it isn't enough for them to give up one man, they have to dismantle the structure of terrorism.

CNN: Do you have any confidence that someone can accomplish that? I think Madeleine Albright in the last hour said it's like cutting off the head of a snake and having all these other little parts trail behind.

KISSINGER: Well, in part, that is correct. But these groups require a base, they require money, they require organization, and if we can get them on the run and if they have to spend all their energy surviving, they can't plan these meticulously prepared attacks that we saw in New York and in Washington. And it isn't only Afghanistan, there are countries like Syria that have bases, Sudan, some are probably in Algeria, and we have to put governments on notice that if they extend safe havens to terrorists, they will run the risks that terrorists do.

CNN: So are you telling me this morning that the United States and its allies might find themselves in the position of attacking Syria and perhaps Iraq?

KISSINGER: No, I don't think we have to attack Syria because Syria will close down these camps if they are brought under enough pressure. Iraq, I would be open-minded on. If they have ties to any of these terrorist networks, they should be attacked.

CNN: Let's explore further the impact of Pakistan, now offering its support to the United States in exchange for retiring $30 billion worth of debt and some other things they want taken care of by the United States. There are folks like the Northern Alliance, the opposition front to the Taliban, that says don't trust Pakistan. Do you trust Pakistan?

KISSINGER: I don't know. I would judge countries by their performance now, not by their words. The American objective has to be to break up these terrorist organizations. I'm not saying that all had to be done with military force; for example, there could be a ban on travel to any country that has safe haven for terrorists, added to economic pressures. But in the end these terrorist groups must have training bases; they prepare these things at great leisure, and it is dangerous for all of us, suicidal, to let them get organized, hit us, then take one retaliatory blow and come back two or three years later with another disruptive, murderous attack.

CNN: So while the Bush administration is exploring military options, it is working around the clock to build a number of different kinds of coalitions. *snip*

CNN: You said that, and Sunday we heard a number of cabinet secretaries repeat that message. What is it that the American public should be prepared for? I heard someone say a 10-year war.

KISSINGER: Well, it could be a prolonged war, but its intensity will diminish, and after a while it will be a mopping-up operation. And what we have to remember is, if we don't do it, we will remain permanently vulnerable. People who rely on us and others even who don't rely on us are going to be under an even greater threat than we are, and that means that the world will be dominated by terrorists, and we can't tolerate this.

CNN: One last question for you: Do you think U.S. intelligence knows where Osama bin Laden is today as we speak?

KISSINGER: Well, they probably don't know the street number, but they probably have a general idea of the region where he's located. And we ought to give some credit to our intelligence services because they've been under tremendous pressure from our domestic institutions, and they've had a tough job.

CNN: So you are not willing to say U.S. intelligence has failed America?

KISSINGER: No. I think U.S. intelligence has been -- if you look at one investigation after another, they have done as good a job as they could under the circumstances.

Find this article at:

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/17/gen.kissinger.cnna/index.html

No comments:

ShareThis