Behind The Looking Glass

"....Until 30 March 1981, Reagan had only played at being shot. [The] realization that he was meant to die, tempered his enthusiasm to the point where George H. Bush actually called the shots for eight-years, plus the next four-years he actually served as President (1989-1993).

Before you close your mind to the possibility that George H. Bush could/would be part of such a dastardly scheme, remember that four years before he was Reagan's running-mate, Bush was DCI (Director of the Central Intelligence Agency) under Gerald Ford -- not his first CIA position. In a letter dated 29 November 1963 to Director Intelligence Research, Department of State, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover wrote: "An informant who has furnished reliable information in the past and who is close to a small pro-Castro group in Miami has advised that the assassination of the president may result in strong repressive measures being taken against them." The letter ends: "The substance of the foregoing information was orally furnished to Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency and Captain William Edwards of the Defense Intelligence Agency on November 23, 1963 by Mr. W.T. Forsyth of this Bureau." Colonel Fletcher Prouty stated that, in his capacity of liaison between the Pentagon and CIA in 1961, he personally "sanitized" two freighters named "Barbara" and "Houston" for use in the Bay of Pigs invasion, code named "Zapata" -- the same name as George Bush's oil company at the time.

The same time Bush was DCI, I commanded Special Forces in Latin America. My best friend COL. AJ Baker came to Panama in 1976 as team-chief of a clandestine operation code-named "Watchtower." The CIA and Israeli Mossad were running cocaine from Colombia to Albert Air Force Base at Panama City, Panama. Baker's team provided "below the radar mask" navigation for drug-transporting aircraft. Manuel Noriega laundered the drug-money through banks in Panama. My mission included "Unconventional Warfare" throughout the region -- meaning direct-action missions (assassinations). I informed the 470th Military Intelligence Group that I intended to target Noriega with extreme-prejudice as the key to the drug cartel. Almost immediately, the ACSI (Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence), General Harold Aaron flew to Fort Gulick and ordered me to "Keep your hands off of Manuel Noriega! He has immense value at the highest levels." I then learned that DCI George Bush was paying Noriega $250,000 per-year as a CIA retainer. When Bush became President, he was asked by the media about his relationship to Noriega? Bush lied and said he had "never met Manuel Noriega." The truth is that we twice tracked Noriega to DCI Bush's house in Washington, D.C. Insider Nelson Rockefeller is a man who wanted to be President, but settled for control over the top-spot through George H. Bush. Reagan swore he would never have Bush as a running mate -- until summoned to New York by Rockefeller who assured him that if he ever hoped to see the inside of the White House, Bush would be his vice! It was the same with well-meaning peanut farmer Jimmy Carter when he was forced to accept CFR leader Cyrus Vance (Secretary of State) and Trilateral Commission founder Zbigniew Brezinski (National Security Advisor). If people like Nelson Rockefeller (VP under Ford) fall short of becoming President, [their] agenda is carried out through imbedded controllers....."

 

http://www.bogritz.com/lookingglass.html

Paulson asks Congress to lift debt limit

By Martin Crutsinger

WASHINGTON -- Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told Congress on
Wednesday the government will hit the current debt ceiling on Oct.
1. He sought quick action to increase the limit, saying it was
essential to protect the "full faith and credit" of the country,
especially at a time of financial market turmoil.

The limit is $8.965 trillion. Unless Congress votes to raise it,
the country would be unable to borrow more money to keep the
government operating and to pay debt obligations coming due.

The United States has never defaulted on a debt payment but the
decision on whether to raise the debt ceiling often means a prolonged
battle in Congress.

Paulson wrote congressional leaders that according to data now
available, the Treasury expects to reach the ceiling on Oct. 1 --
the first day of the new budget year.

That projection does not take into account moves the government
often has to use, such as withdrawing investments from certain trust
funds to create room for extra borrowing until Congress finally
approves a debt increase.

This month, the Senate Finance Committee approved increasing the
limit on the debt to $9.82 trillion. That boost of $850 billion
would be the fifth since President Bush took office in 2001.

The House approved an increase in May. The full Senate has not acted
yet.

"The full faith and credit of the United States, to which we all
remain committed, is a national asset and a cornerstone of the
global financial system," Paulson wrote. "In light of current
developments in financial markets, which would be exacerbated by
uncertainty in the Treasuries market, I urge the Senate to pass the
legislation reported by the Finance Committee to increase the debt
limit as soon as possible."

The national debt is the total accumulation of annual budget deficits,
which must be financed with borrowed money....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070919/ap_on_bi_ge/debt_limit

Making a killing

how private armies became a $120bn global industry

....arguably the fastest-growing industry in the global economy. The sector is now worth up to $120bn annually with operations in at least 50 countries, according to Peter Singer, a security analyst with the Brookings Institution in Washington.

"The rate of growth in the security industry has been phenomenal," says Deborah Avant, a professor of political science at UCLA. The single largest spur to this boom is the conflict in Iraq.

The workings of this industry have come under intense scrutiny this week in the angry aftermath of the killing of Iraqi civilians by the US-owned Blackwater corporation in Baghdad. The Iraqi government has demanded the North Carolina-based company is withdrawn. But with Blackwater responsible for the protection of hundreds of senior US and Iraqi officials, from the US ambassador to visiting congressional delegations, there is certainty in diplomatic and military circles that this will not happen.

[...]

Now the mercenary trade comes with its own business jargon. Guns for hire come under the umbrella term of privatised military firms, with their own acronym PMFs. The industry itself has done everything it can to shed the "mercenary" tag and most companies avoid the term "military" in preference for "security". "The term mercenary is not accurate," says Mr Ayers, who argues that military personnel in defensive roles should be distinguished from soldiers of fortune.

There is nothing new about soldiers for hire, the private companies simply represent the trade in a new form. "Organised as business entities and structured along corporate lines, they mark the corporate evolution of the mercenary trade," according to Mr Singer, who was among the first to plot the worldwide explosion in the use of private military firms.

In many ways it mirrors broader trends in the world economy as countries switch from manufacturing to services and outsource functions once thought to be the preserve of the state. Iraq has become a testing ground for this burgeoning industry, creating staggering financial opportunities and equally immense ethical dilemmas.

None of the estimated 48,000 private military operatives in Iraq has been convicted of a crime and no one knows how many Iraqis have been killed by private military forces, because the US does not keep records.

According to some estimates, more than 800 private military employees have been killed in the war so far, and as many as 3,300 wounded.

These numbers are greater than the losses suffered by any single US army division and larger than the casualties suffered by the rest of the coalition put together.

[...]

In Abu Ghraib, all of the translators and up to half of the interrogators were reportedly private contractors.

Private soldiers are involved in all stages of war, from training and war-gaming before the invasion to delivering supplies. Camp Doha in Kuwait, the launch-pad for the invasion, was built by private contractors.

It is not just the military that has turned to the private sector, humanitarian agencies are dependent on PMFs in almost every war zone from Bosnia to the Democratic Republic of Congo. Which raises the next market the industry would like to see opened: peacekeeping. And the lobbying has already begun.

 http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2984818.ece

The Police State Is Right Here, Right Now

"....As for political parties, I prefer the definition offered by Mike Ruppert in "America: From Freedom To Fascism" in which he explains that the two major parties are like two crime families-the Genoveses and the Gambinos. They function like players in a crap game that feign opposition to each other, but when the chips are down, they will always unite to serve their common interests. (If the Iraq occupation is not a case in point, then I don't know what is.) When we vote in presidential elections for corporately-owned candidates or "the lesser evil", we are merely choosing between the two crime families, and even if one candidate were not a crime family member, our votes in the past two presidential elections, as Bev Harris has so astutely demonstrated, have been hacked. In the throes of the current, and I might add, rapidly-accelerating fascist shift, what evidence do we have for assuming that if there is an election in 2008, anything will be different? Tell me again, what's the definition of insanity?

[....]

Some of my students who are criminal justice majors tell me that the latest strategies now being taught to police officers are "shock doctrine" techniques which terrorize and intimidate civilians in order to control them. Law enforcement officers are no longer encouraged to "keep a cool head" but to "follow their own instincts" (which usually means their own internal, adrenaline-charged state of terror) and react with full force because it's easier to apologize (or encounter a lawsuit) than to ask permission or risk being killed. Terrified people should not be wearing a badge and carrying a gun, and when they are, a fully terrorized society is guaranteed....."

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18426.htm

 

Iran cuts foreign dollar assets to 30 percent

TEHRAN: Iran has massively cut down its dependence on the dollar in the face of US pressure over its nuclear programme and now 70 percent of its foreign assets are saved in other currencies or in gold, an official said on Monday.

“After the strong fall in the dollar and the decision to transfer our foreign currency reserves into euros, we have taken measures and now 70 percent of Iranian assets are in euros, other currencies or gold,” said Deputy Economy Minister Mohammad Zahedi Vafa.

Iran had announced earlier this year it was switching out of dollars and would instead save its foreign assets in other currencies to dampen the effects of US pressure on its financial system.

The United States has been seeking to make international banking transactions harder for Iran as another tool to pressure Tehran into backing down over its controversial nuclear programme.

Several European banks have drastically cut business with Iran as result of pressure from the United States.

Caretaker Oil Minister Gholam Hossein Nozari has said that already 60 percent of Iran’s oil transactions for export are carried out in euros.

Iran’s foreign currency reserves held in banks abroad have risen by 37 percent over the past year to the equivalent of 65 billion dollars as of the end of June 2007, the central bank said last week.

The world’s fourth largest oil exporter and the second in OPEC has been helped by soaring crude prices which are helping the country weather domestic economic problems. afp

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C09%5C18%5Cstory_18-9-2007_pg5_18

The Inevitable Decline of the American Empire

An interview with Immanuel Wallerstein

by Ral Zibechi

English translation by Charlotte Elmitt

In the course of his visit to the Southern Cone of South America, the
American sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein spoke on one of his favorite
subjects: the end of the United States' hegemony"which, he believes,
will be definitive within the next decade. But he also let it be known
that in the course of the next two or three decades we will be living
in a post-capitalist world that could either be much better, or worse,
than the present one.

The decline of the empire, which had been gradual and inevitable since
the "global revolution of 1968" has been accelerating exponentially
since 2003, before the predictable failure of the American invasion of
Iraq. A country that cannot subdue a small and exhausted nation, after
a terrible decade of global sanctions, cannot be in any condition to
take the lead in global affairs. This is one of the principle
conclusions that Wallerstein outlined during his visit to Montevideo.

The United States moved from imposing "95%" of its will upon the world
between 1945 and 1970 to a situation of impotence that manifested
itself in the arrival to power of the neoconservatives of George W.
Bush in 2001. This was a demonstration of weakness and not, as is
usually believed to be the case, a show of strength. For the
neoconservatives only a display of military strength can reverse the
decline of a power that is no longer feared and, consequently, they
will encounter ever-growing challenges.

According to Wallerstein, the causes of this decline are to be found in
three challenges that converged between the end of the 1960s and the
beginning of the 1970s: the economic competition between Japan and
Europe, the decolonization of the third world and its subsequent
rejection of the bi-polar U.S.-USSR order, and the emergence of a new
generation of anti-systemic movements. These three challenges were
successful and eroded the hegemony of the superpower that had imposed
the Washington consensus, the neoliberal system, and the globalization
model as a means of regaining lost power.

Nevertheless, the "global revolution of 1968" or in other words the
challenge posed by the new movements is, for Wallerstein, a decisive
fact that is not only at the heart of the hegemonic crisis of the
empire but also survival itself of capitalism as a global system. In a
revealing text, "1968: The Great Experiment,"1 he maintains that 1968's
events were more important even than the French and Russian revolutions
and because of its significance was the only revolution in the world
equal to that of 1848. He assures us that although both failed, they
changed the world because they were unplanned; rather they were
"spontaneous in the truest sense of the word."

The "revolution of 1968" undermined the capacity of the North to watch
over and intervene in the South, produced changes "in the power
relations between status groups (age groups, gender groups, and
'ethnic' minorities)" that although they occurred "in the hidden spaces
of daily life" are lasting and suppose permanent subordination; and
civil society and salaried workers showed themselves to be less
disposed than before to both passively accept domination and take
orders.

Finally the intervention in Iraq failed in its three basic objectives:
putting the brakes on Europe's growing autonomy, as well as on
countries with supposed nuclear weapons such as Iran and North Korea,
and the moderate Arab regimes such as Saudi Arabia that were reticent
about a lasting peace with Israel. Four years later, not only has the
complete opposite come to pass, but also a major turnaround in what
Wallerstein terms "unilateral military machismo." "What was a slow
decline for 30 years has become a rapid one in the years since 2003.
The last pillar of hegemony was a military superiority so mighty that
it could not be challenged by the next 10 or 20 subsequent countries
combined. But in Iraq it was made evident that the United States cannot
use its military superiority."

Finally, he points out that the "spirit of Davos," a reference to the
Economic Forum in Davos, and the "spirit of Porto Alegre" where the
first World Social Forum took place are the two main paths humanity
faces when choosing a post-capitalistic society. "It could be worse
than the present system, or less hierarchical and more egalitarian; but
that all depends on us," he concluded.

The interview focused on the emergence of a multi-polar world and the
present situation that Latin America finds itself in.

RZ: You state that in the next few years there will be a dozen powers
that will be substitutes for the current single-power world;
furthermore you suggest that Russia will align herself with Europe
whilst the United States will form an alliance with China and Japan.

IW: What I see is that the end of the United States' hegemony will give
way to the surge of several regional centers, one of which could be
Mercosur. But we will also see Russia, China, India, South Africa and
her neighbors, along with, of course, Europe and Japan. There will also
probably be minor centers. Furthermore, I think there will be three big
associations on a global scale that will be more dynamic "poles" which
will be in a position to dictate the direction of the world: the United
States, Europe, and Japan. But I do not think that the three
associations can remain a reality for an extended period and therefore
the weakest of the three will align itself with one of the strongest. I
believe that the weakest will be the United States and that for
geopolitical reasons I think it will align itself with East Asia where
China and Japan will play a relevant role. As for Russia, it could
align with Europe, with whom it has always had important relations.

RZ: You don't see the possibility of a Russia-China alliance like that
which is emerging at the root of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

IW: In an increasingly chaotic world, anything is possible. But I do
not see Russia allied with Japan; I do not believe that to be possible.

RZ: Brazil appears to be driving for an alliance with the United States
based around the production of sugar cane-derived ethanol. Do you think
that this policy could contribute to the strengthening of a
Washington-led hegemony in the region?

IW: I believe that the interest of Brazil's foreign policy is to
strengthen South American autonomy in order that the region may play a
role within a multi-polar world. In this scenario, Brazil positions
itself seemingly as a more serious power and I see that the agreements
with the United States do not go beyond what Russia or China are doing,
that is to say specific agreements without major compromises and with
important reservations. I believe that it is an intelligent policy, and
possible. Furthermore, even should the right come to power in Brazil,
this policy will not change. Now the military is reworking the old
policy of the military regime of building nuclear weapons and although
the United States is not at all pleased with this, they are powerless
to do anything. In Brazil, politics have turned to the center, with no
heavyweight far leftwing or rightwing parties and for this reason I
think that foreign policy will be more stable. In domestic policy the
changes will be slight with very gradual reforms like those currently
being seen in Uruguay. These policies, centered as they are on gradual
reforms, are typical of global social democracy and I think that these
are going to be the solution for the region as a whole.

RZ: Do you believe that the interventionist policy of Washington will
gain strength in the future? Can operations such as the "Plan Colombia"
gain momentum?

IW: If Bush tries to send troops to Colombia he won't succeed because
Congress will prevent him from doing so. Alvaro Uribe is the last
serious ally in the region. But he is facilitating Hugo Ch!vez's role
as an intermediary in negotiations with the Fuerzas Armadas
Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) in an effort that, if successful,
will lead to the growth of his persona on a global scale. Even though
the United States does not like it, it can't do anything in this
situation either.

I believe that the policy of intervention that lasted a century is
already a thing of the past. The United States military is a powerful
force but civil society has placed limits on it since the Vietnam War.
Previously it was an army of conscripts but now it is a professional
one and, furthermore, a good number of the troops in Iraq are
mercenaries from private companies. The middle classes no longer join
the armed forces; the only ones that do are the poor. In order to
augment the number of troops, compulsory military service would need to
be introduced, and this would lead to a new uprising from students and
other sectors of the population. One of the decisive fronts on which
the United States lost the Vietnam War was the domestic one.

RZ: Is there a possibility of military intervention in Cuba?

IW: No. If, as everything seems to indicate the Democrats win the
election, there will be a significant change in relations. On the one
hand there are important commercial interests, especially in the
agricultural sector, which would like to increase trade with the island
nation. On the other hand, the rightwing Cubans in Miami, the 60s
generation, are in decline and are increasingly less influential in
U.S. politics. The new generations of Cubans in the United States
prefer a "thaw" that would allow them to return to Cuba or establish
normal relations.

What I mean is that there is a power void on behalf of the United
States in Latin America which allows the governments to hold greater
degrees of autonomy. I believe that Mercosur has a great opportunity to
establish an alliance with the Andean Community, which will make a
significant change in the role that the region might play in the world.

RZ: For social movements, the situation is very complex. On the one
hand, they tend to feel defrauded by what progressive and leftwing
governments are doing, but on the other, they do not have the ability
to propose an opposition front without the result ending up favorable
to rightwing parties.

IW: Yes, that's the situation. I have come from Brazil and I see that
the Movimiento Sin Tierra (MST) disagrees strongly with Lula because
agricultural reform is not progressing, but yet they support him in
elections since he is undoubtedly better than Fernando Henrique
Cardoso. It is the traditional problem when the leftwing party tied to
the movements comes to power. A discussion as to what to do emerges. A
head-on collision is a problem, as is not doing anything. In my opinion
the movements should take a clear stance: support the better parties
but without expecting that they will make fundamental changes. It is a
defensive position, but it is a matter of trying to maintain autonomy.

RZ: Are these types of problems influencing the World Social Forum?

IW: Yes of course, there are very different positions facing these new
realities. But I am hopeful that the Forum will continue to be an open
space, a horizontal one, in which hierarchical relations are not built,
and where the most diverse of opinions can co-exist. In order for this
to happen, it is important to bear in mind that the enemy is not the
left.

RZ: In a certain way, are you therefore saying that the most mature
position is that taken by the Landless Movement in Brazil?

IW: Yes. But the Zapatistas' position is also very important because
they have done important work on the question of autonomy, not as a
declarative issue but as a genuine construct. I think that the positive
relations that the Landless Movement and the Zapatistas have is a vital
step forward. It would be very positive for the Forum if in future
years the Zapatistas are integrated.

End Notes

1. G. Arrighi, T. K. Hoptkins, I. Wallerstein, "Anti-systemic
movements" ("Movimientos antisist(c)mocos"), Madrid, Akal, 1999.

[Ral Zibechi is an international analyst at Brecha, a weekly journal in
Montevideo, Uruguay, professor and researcher on social movements at
the Multiversidad Franciscana de Am(c)rica Latina, and adviser to
grassroots organizations. He writes the monthly "Zibechi Report" for
the CIP Americas Policy Program (www.americaspolicy.org). ]

 

Source: http://americas.irc-online.org/am/4567

Greenpeace Launches Attack on GM Crops in Romania

Greenpeace has launched a major attack against
production and marketing of genetically modified cereals in Romania.

The environmental organisation announced earlier this month that it had
discovered illegal plantations of genetically modified (GM) soya and corn over
110 hectares in Insula Mare a Brailei, a wide stretch of land in county Braila,
200 km east of capital Bucharest.

"Both soya and corn seeds used in Braila have been produced by U.S. company
Monsanto," Gabriel Paun, coordinator for Romania of the Greenpeace anti-GMO
(genetically modified organisms) campaign told IPS.

Cultivation of GM soya is illegal in the European Union (EU), and starting this
year in Romania as well. But cultivation of MON810, the type of genetically
modified corn found in Braila, is allowed in some EU states.

Greenpeace argues that....

 

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39299

Middle-Aged Delinquents

"...Why, then, do many pundits and policy makers rush to denigrate
adolescents as brainless? One troubling possibility: youths are being
maligned to draw attention from the reality that it's actually middle-
aged adults - the parents - whose behavior has worsened.

Our most reliable measures show Americans ages 35 to 54 are suffering
ballooning crises:

18,249 deaths from overdoses of illicit drugs in 2004, up 550 percent
per capita since 1975, according to data from the National Center for
Health Statistics.

46,925 fatal accidents and suicides in 2004, leaving today's middle-
agers 30 percent more at risk for such deaths than people aged 15 to
19, according to the national center.

More than four million arrests in 2005, including one million for
violent crimes, 500,000 for drugs and 650,000 for drinking-related
offenses, according to the F.B.I. All told, this represented a 200
percent leap per capita in major index felonies since 1975.

630,000 middle-agers in prison in 2005, up 600 percent since 1977,
according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

21 million binge drinkers (those downing five or more drinks on one
occasion in the previous month), double the number among teenagers and
college students combined, according to the government's National
Household Survey on Drug Use and Health.

370,000 people treated in hospital emergency rooms for abusing illegal
drugs in 2005, with overdose rates for heroin, cocaine,
pharmaceuticals and drugs mixed with alcohol far higher than among
teenagers.

More than half of all new H.I.V./AIDS diagnoses in 2005 were given to
middle-aged Americans, up from less than one-third a decade ago,
according to the Centers for Disease Control.

What experts label "adolescent risk taking" is really baby boomer risk
taking. It's true that 30 years ago, the riskiest age group for
violent death was 15 to 24. But those same boomers continue to suffer
high rates of addiction and other ills throughout middle age, while
later generations of teenagers are better behaved. Today, the age
group most at risk for violent death is 40 to 49, including illegal-
drug death rates five times higher than for teenagers.

Strangely, the experts never mention even more damning new
"discoveries" about the middle-aged brain, like the 2004 study of
scans by Harvard researchers revealing declines in key memory and
learning genes that become significant by age 40. In reality, human
brains are highly adaptive. Both teenagers and adults display a wide
variety of attitudes and behaviors derived from individual conditions
and choices, not harsh biological determinism...."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/opinion/17males.html?em&ex=1190260800&en=546a3ff638a08202&ei=5087%0A