The Qaddafi Regime And The Bush Regime-- Together Forever In Crimes Against Humanity

Lately we've been covering the overthrow of Libya's government by the CIA from the perspective of how they overthrew governments they deemed "unfriendly" in Iran, Guatemala, Ecuador, Chile, etc. Before Bush left office, however, the CIA had a very good reason to keep Qaddafi in power: rendition and torture, the kind of rendition and torture that Cheney was on TV celebrating last weekend.

Very embarrassing documents have been discovered by Human Rights Watch and the British Independent newspaper's journalists that reveal close intelligence relationship between the United States, the UK and Libya during the so-called War on Terror.



The secret files reveal that the secret services of the UK, MI6 and the United States, the CIA had a regular dialogue with their counterparts in Libyan Intelligence, in particular with the former Libyan foreign minister and head of Libya's intelligence service, Mussa Kussa who defected days after the outbreak of the uprising that ousted the Libyan dictator Muammar Al Qathafi from power.



Mussa Kussa, who have long been accused by Rights groups of involvement in atrocities, had called on the UK to arrest him at the time, but after first defecting to the UK, he later flew on to Qatar.

Short story-- in return for Qaddafi's thugs torturing people the CIA decided needed rough treatment, the CIA handed over information on anti-Qaddafi dissidents. "In its report about the Human Rights Watch's discovery, the BBC goes on to say that the papers outline the rendition of several suspects, including one that Human Rights Watch has identified as Abdel Hakim Belhaj, known in the documents as Abdullah al-Sadiq, who is now the military commander of the rebel forces in Tripoli." Oops!



Although this isn't getting much coverage in the U.S., the NY Times mentioned it over the sleepy Labor Day Weekend. It wasn't information that came totally out of the blue and a CIA propagandist excused the whole thing as legitimate. “It can’t come as a surprise that the Central Intelligence Agency works with foreign governments to help protect our country from terrorism and other deadly threats.” See? What's a little crimes against humanity between ruling elite types?

Although it has been known that Western intelligence services began cooperating with Libya after it abandoned its program to build unconventional weapons in 2004, the files left behind as Tripoli fell to rebels show that the cooperation was much more extensive than generally known with both the C.I.A. and its British equivalent, MI-6.



Some documents indicate that the British agency was even willing to trace phone numbers for the Libyans, and another appears to be a proposed speech written by the Americans for Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi about renouncing unconventional weapons.



...One document in the C.I.A. binder said operatives were “in a position to deliver Shaykh Musa to your physical custody, similar to what we have done with other senior L.I.F.G. members in the recent past.” The reference was to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which was dedicated to the overthrow of Colonel Qaddafi, and which American officials believed had ties to Al Qaeda.



When Libyans asked to be sent Abu Abdullah al-Sadiq, another member of the group, a case officer wrote back on March 4, 2004, that “we are committed to developing this relationship for the benefit of both our services,” and promised to do their best to locate him, according to a document in the C.I.A. binder.



Two days later, an officer faxed the Libyans to say that Mr. Sadiq and his pregnant wife were planning to fly into Malaysia, and the authorities there agreed to put them on a British Airways flight to London that would stop in Bangkok. “We are planning to take control of the pair in Bangkok and place them on our aircraft for a flight to your country,” the case officer wrote.

That's the guy who's now running the show for the "rebels" in Tripoli, Abdel Hakim Belhaj, who says a couple of CIA thugs also tortured him while he was in Bangkok before they sent him off to Qaddafi. No wonder McCain was sucking up to Qaddafi. This crap is right up his alley. One has to wonder if, when he brought his gay little South Carolina sidekick with him to meet Muammar if they let Lindsay have his way with any of the hapless captives. Plenty more papers yet to be translated.





Predictably enough, Saturday's Wall Street Journal just loved In My Time, Dick Cheney's entirely self-serving memoir. If you don't even get beyond the title of Paul Gigot's grotesque and entirely ideological apologia, you find out that "Cheney was relentless and unapologetic in pursuit of his policy goals-- and Americans are safer for it." What more would anyone need to know?

On Guantánamo, interrogations, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, wiretapping without a warrant, and the rest of the Bush antiterror architecture, he marshals familiar arguments and claims vindication.



He has a strong case, aided in no small part by the Obama administration. One virtue of Barack Obama's victory in 2008 is that it has put a Democratic stamp on the war on terror. In every particular except for interrogations, Mr. Obama has either embraced or been forced to accept substantially the policies that the Bush administration devised... Mr. Obama may not want to admit it, but his success against al Qaeda owes more to Dick Cheney than it does to his own campaign agenda.

Hard to understand why Gigot and his cronies hate Obama so much. He is, after all, just keeping Cheney's flame alive throughout the world.

Qaddafi, Libya... Some Other Sides Of The Story

Everybody's happy, happy, happy that the Qaddafi's have been overthrown, right? I mean, once it became public, however that happened, that he was personally behind the Lockerbie bombing-- like someone didn't already know that?-- he had to be deposed. And deposed he was, primarily by the CIA, the U.S. military and the NATO allies. Over the past couple weeks I've been trying to draw comparisons-- imperfect as they are-- between the U.S. overthrowing Qaddafi and the CIA activities that toppled legitimate governments "we" (meaning corporate America) disagreed with in Iran, Guatemala, Chile and Ecuador. I left out how the CIA toppled governments in Australia, Italy, Greece and even England. And now I see there are other people thinking along the same lines... like the fine folks at the Revolutionary Communist Party of the USA. Don't laugh.

Qaddafi's overthrow and the victory of the "rebel" forces is being presented by the U.S. rulers, their European imperialist allies-- including Britain, France, and Italy-- and their media mouthpieces as a big victory for the people, a triumph of "democracy" over tyranny, and a vindication of their "humanitarian" military intervention in Libya.  



As the anti-Qaddafi forces took over Tripoli, President Barack Obama stated, "The people of Libya are showing that the universal pursuit of dignity and freedom is far stronger than the iron fist of a dictator... The future of Libya is now in the hands of the Libyan people."



It is nothing of the sort. The unfolding events in Libya are primarily the result of a U.S.-NATO military, political, and economic assault on Qaddafi’s forces, stretching over months.  



The day the Tripoli fell to the anti-Qaddafi forces, the New York Times reported:



"Through Saturday, NATO and its allies had flown 7,459 strike missions, or sorties, attacking thousands of targets, from individual rocket launchers to major military headquarters. The cumulative effect not only destroyed Libya's military infrastructure but also greatly diminished the ability of Colonel Qaddafi's commanders to control forces, leaving even committed fighting units unable to move, resupply or coordinate operations." ("Sharper Surveillance and NATO Coordination Helped Rebels Race to Capital," August 22)



This assault has had not been about liberating Libya or ensuring self-determination for the nation of Libya. Instead, it has been aimed at strengthening imperialism's grip on Libya... [T]he day after Tripoli fell, the New York Times carried an article headlined, "Scramble Begins for Access to Libya's Oil."

It wasn't that big a war. I saw a CNN news crawl yesterday that said it's estimated that 50,000 Libyans died. And I guess that doesn't count the African workers who are all over the country who seem to be meeting a bad fate at the hands of "our" pals. Even a reporter who is totally buying into the "magnificence" (his word) of the battle to free themselves from the tyrant, observed that the whole enterprise has been marred by racism.

"This is a bad time to be a black man in Libya," reported Alex Thomson on Channel 4 News on Sunday. Elsewhere, Kim Sengupta reported for the Independent on the 30 bodies lying decomposing in Tripoli. The majority of them, allegedly mercenaries for Muammar Gaddafi, were black. They had been killed at a makeshift hospital, some on stretchers, some in an ambulance. "Libyan people don't like people with dark skins," a militiaman explained in reference to the arrests of black men.



The basis of this is rumours, disseminated early in the rebellion, of African mercenaries being unleashed on the opposition. Amnesty International's Donatella Rivera was among researchers who examined this allegation and found no evidence for it. Peter Bouckaert of Human Rights Watch similarly had not "identified one mercenary" among the scores of men being arrested and falsely labelled by journalists as such.



Lurking behind this is racism. Libya is an African nation-- however, the term "Africans" is used in Libya to reference the country's black minority. The Amnesty International researcher Diana Eltahawy says that the rebels taking control of Libya have tapped into "existing xenophobia." The New York Times refers to "racist overtones," but sometimes the racism is explicit. A rebel slogan painted in Misrata during the fighting salutes "the brigade for purging slaves, black skin." A consequence of this racism has been mass arrests of black men, and gruesome killings – just some of the various atrocities that human rights organisations blame rebels for. The racialisation of this conflict does not end with hatred of "Africans." Graffiti by rebels frequently depicted Gaddafi as a demonic Jew.



...The dominance of relatively conservative elites and the absence of countervailing pressures skewed the politics of the rebellion. We hear of "the masses," and "solidarity." But masses can be addressed on many grounds-- some reactionary. There are also many bases for solidarity-- some exclusionary. The scapegoating of black workers makes sense from the perspective of elites. For them, Libya was not a society divided on class lines from which many of them had profited. It was united against a usurper inhabiting an alien compound and surviving through foreign power. Instead, the more success Gaddafi had in stabilising his regime, the more the explanation for this relied on the claim that "Gaddafi is killing us with his Africans."



A further, unavoidable twist is the alliance with Nato. The February revolt involved hundreds of thousands of people across Libya. By early March the movement was in retreat, overseas special forces were entering Libya, and senior figures in the rebellion called for external intervention. Initially isolated, they gained credibility as Gaddafi gained ground. As a result, the initiative passed from a very large popular base to a relatively small number of armed fighters under the direction of the NTC and Nato. It was the rebel army that subsequently took the lead in persecuting black workers.



Under different conditions, perhaps, unity between the oppressed was possible. But this would probably have required a more radical alliance, one as potentially perilous for those now grooming themselves for office as for Gaddafi. As it is, the success of the rebels contains a tragic defeat. The original emancipatory impulse of February 17 lies, for now, among the corpses of "Africans" in Tripoli.

At least they didn't infect them with syphilis. I mean who would ever do something like that? (The Washington Post story gets all the facts out there except that this was done by a gang of Nazis brought here by domestic fascists in the OSS straight from experimenting on Jews and other captives in the concentration camps. They did lots of experiments in the U.S. and for the U.S.) Off topic... let's get back to Libya. Actually we're going to turn to Africa News for a completely different perspective than the one we're hearing from corporate media cheerleaders for the Military Industrial Complex. I'm not claiming it's a more valid perspective; it's just another perspective to the one we all know-- or should know by now-- is completely compromised and devoid of anything beyond slick propaganda.

Libya's destruction, a victory for the west; a defeat for ordinary Libyans. The suffering of Libyans has just begun. For there can never be true liberation when your oppressor is the one who defines what your freedom should be. The ousting of Colonel Gaddafi, Libyan leader for 42 years, by the rebels backed western forces especially NATO is indeed a victory for the west whose fixation on Gaddafi's Libya has become worrisome.



It’s definitely not a victory for ordinary Libyans who would continue to suffer a lot of nervous strain and shock after the destruction. Neither is it a victory for the rebels who have been in excess jubilation since capturing Gaddafi’s official residence. “We are free,” they proclaimed in wild happiness.



But they have forgotten one important thing: that they are now slaves to all the countries that helped them kick out Gaddafi.



Apparently the rebels are not ordinary Libyan but a group of people who want the share of the oil with the help of foreign forces. Gaddafi’s main crime may be the fact that he refused to let the west control Libya’s resources, hence he must be eliminated by all possible means.



In their euphoria and in their haste to get rid of him, they forgot that none of the countries that backed them has the interest of Libyans at heart. Let them for once re-visit Iraq.



...Gaddafi should have known that neither America nor its allies forget and forgive. He should have known that the oil in his background is enough to eliminate him by all means. He should have learnt a lesson from Iraq, a nation destroyed by Obama's predecessor on the pretense that the late Iraqi leader possessed Weapon of Mass Destruction which turned out to be a ruse.



It was simply a ploy by Mr. Bush to invade the oil rich nation. There is always an excuse to invade certain countries especially when the rulers of such countries refused to be a stooge.

Earlier this morning author and investigative journalist Russ Baker was asking for some transparency about U.S. intervention in Libya. He's already written about the growing doubts about Libya's complicity in Lockerbie and looking at the American role in the "liberation" of the country... well, like many of us, he smells a rat.

It’s true that Qaddafi, like many-- perhaps a majority of-- rulers in his region, was a thug and a brute, if at times a comical figure. But one doesn’t need to be an apologist for him-- nor deny the satisfaction of seeing the citizenry joyously celebrating his ouster-- to demand some honesty about the motives behind his removal. Especially when it comes to our own government’s role in funding it, and thus every American’s unwitting participation in that action.



Let’s start with the official justification for NATO’s launch of its bombing campaign-- for without that campaign, it’s highly improbable the rebels could ever have toppled Qaddafi. We were told from the beginning that the major purpose of what was to be very limited bombing-- indeed, its sole purpose-- was to protect those Libyan civilians rebelling against an oppressive regime from massive retaliation by Qaddafi. Perhaps because of NATO’s initial intervention, the feared Qaddafi-sponsored, genocidal bloodletting never did occur. (At least, not beyond the military actions one would expect a government to take when facing a civil war:  after all, remember General Sherman’s “scorched earth” policy in the US Civil War?). However, protecting civilians apparently didn’t generate sufficient public support for intervention, so we started to hear about other purported reasons for it.  Qaddafi was encouraging his soldiers to…commit mass rape! And giving them Viagra! And condoms!



You can’t make this sort of thing up. And yet that’s just what the NATO crew did-- made it up. The media, always glad to have a “sexy” story, especially a sick sexy story, even a sick sexy story with no evidence to back it up, covered this ad nauseum, but never bothered to find out if it was true.



...Qaddafi should never be seen as a victim-- indeed, he has always been sleazy and monstrous in various ways. But the US and its allies appear to have cared little about this, while being deeply  troubled by his role as a fly in the geopolitical ointment. A look at the long and complex historical relationship between Qaddafi and the West begins to explain the true reason he had to go. It also dovetails perfectly with a growing body of indications that Western elites encouraged and even provoked the uprising-- while tapping into deep discontent with the dictator.



Qaddafi has long been a thorn in the side of the West’s oil industry and their national security apparatus. In the early 1970s he worked closely with Occidental Petroleum chairman Armand Hammer in thwarting the ambitions of the oil majors. He was a leader in the boycott of Israel and often cozied up to the Soviet Union.



...What the media has so relentlessly characterized as the “spontaneous uprising” of February 2011 was hardly spontaneous. It began even before the Arab Spring itself commenced in Tunisia during December of last year—and it was orchestrated by the West.



...Khalifa Hifter, a former Libyan army officer, had spent the past two decades living just down the road from CIA headquarters, with no apparent source of income.  In 1996, while a resident of Vienna, Virginia, he organized a Benghazi-based revolt that failed. When the current uprising was sputtering in March, CIA sent Hifter in to take command.



When the rebels were being routed, the United Nations Security Council approved a no-fly order for Qaddafi. The NATO bombing began almost immediately, under the “humanitarian” label.

Before long, other European countries had covert elements in Libya. The British paper, The Guardian, has just reported the role of British special forces in coordinating the rebels on the ground. This was denied by the UK government . But then another British paper, The Telegraph, cited UK defense sources saying special forces had been in Libya already for weeks, i.e., since early August.)

Hopefully they won't attack Algeria next-- for it's oil... I mean for giving the Qaddafi family shelter. Interesting video below, although the filmmakers seem a little hung up with the Rothschilds.

Annals of Anonymity: We can hardly expect a gov't official to talk on the record about kinfolk of a tyrant who faces a "delicate future"

Plus a final note of apology re. Hurricane Irene



From the HuffPost World report: "With its panoramic views and opulent furniture, the seaside home of Hannibal Gaddafi more closely resembles a luxury resort than a private residence. But a closer inspection of the home following Libyan rebels' ransacking has now revealed some of the unspeakable horrors to have allegedly taken place on its premises -- even among those trusted to take care of the colonel's grandchildren."



by Ken



Sometimes, faced with a tempting link of a NYT e-newsletter, I find myself trying to establish criteria for clickworthiness sort of the way Elaine on Seinfeld, faced with the impossibility any more than her current supply of her preferred contraceptive sponge, took to evaluating prospective male companions for "spongeworthiness." Worse still are the times I forget and impetuously click through without taking time for a proper evaluation of clickworthiness. (Luckily, the stakes are less portentous than those Elaine faced.)



So I can't really say that my interest level in the story reached true clickworthiness, but you can't take back a click once delivered, and there I was this afternoon looking at the story, "Qadaffi's Wife and 3 of His Children Flee to Algeria." No doubt I was primed from having earlier read an AOL-highlighted piece about the Ethiopian nanny of Colonel Qaddafi's son Hannibal's children, "whose wounds appeared to be in desperate need of medical attention" even as she whined about having been tortured by Aline (Mrs. Hannibal) Qaddafi for refusing to beat one of the young uns -- and, oh yes, having worked for a full year in family's seaside home, "with its panoramic views and opulent furniture," which "more closely resembles a luxury resort than a private residence," without being paid a cent.



As it turns out, the "3 of His Children" admitted into Algeria ("admitted through one of the more southerly crossing in the Sahara desert, arriving in a Mercedes and a bus" -- imagine Qaddafis reduced to fleeing the country by bus!) includes, as announced by the Algerian Foreign Ministry and confirmed by Algeria's U.N. ambassador, not just Colonel Q's daughter Aisha and two of his sons, Mohammed and the aforementioned Hannibal, but also their spouses and children! Oh, were you too thinking of the "children" in that headline as being, you know, children?



Oh, there were children packed on that bus -- "many children," according to Algerian U.N. Ambassador Mourad Benmehidi. But they're Colonel Q's grandchildren, not children. Presumably among the party were Mrs. Hannibal and their insufficiently beaten offspring. One can only hope that their new Algerian hosts will be able to provide referrals for a new nanny, though it may not be easy to find one who works as cheap as her predecessor.



Now this may or may not be of interest to you, but none of this is why I bring it all up. Well, not exactly. We have sort of grazed up against the delicate question of why exactly the Qadaffi party's Mercedes and bus were allowed into Algeria, and their occupants apparently given refuge in Algiers. In case you were wondering, the NYT report reports:

An Algerian Foreign Ministry official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of Colonel Qaddafi's future, said the members of his family who came to Algeria were all in Algiers, the capital. The official noted that none of them had been named in warrants issued by the International Criminal Court for possible war crimes charges, unlike Colonel Qaddafi himself, his son Seif al-Islam and his former intelligence chief. [Emphasis added.]

The person I associate most with the War on Anonymous Sources is Salon's Glenn Greenwald, and we've occasionally eavesdropped on some of his righteous screeds on the subject -- with which, let me say, I couldn't agree more. As Glenn has had far too frequent occasion to point out, the new habit among classier outlets like the New York Times and Washington Post of explaining why an anonynous source was granted anonymity hasn't so much curbed the practice as given it some fancy new window dressing. The Times policy appears to be that we won't grant you anonymity unless you can come up with a really entertaining reason, while the Post's policy appears to be that we won't grant you anonymity unless you ask.



But even by these, er, relaxed standards, my eyes underwent some major popping confronted with this specimen. Let's run this through one more time. The Algerian Foreign Ministry official was --

speaking on condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of (deposed Libyan dictator) Colonel Qaddafi's future.

Um, er, huh? "Because of the delicacy of Colonel Qaddafi's future"? What does that mean? (Suggestion to NYT Foreign Desk: Couldn't you have given us something more solid, like, say, "speaking on condition of anonymity on account of how it's a month without an 'R' in it"?)





FINAL NOTE OF APOLOGY TO THOSE WHO WERE

PEEVED BY ALL THE ATTENTION PAID TO IRENE



Downtown Brattleboro, Vermont -- as the state suffers perhaps its worst flooding in 100 years. But gee, it's only Vermont, and in truth it's probably less than 100 years.



First, to those outside Irene's path, forced to put up with all our yammering: So sorry! I realize how tedious are impending natural disasters that may permanently change the lives of other people. And then when they turn out to be not such a big deal, well, jeez! (Though don't tell that to the folks in Vermont and upstate New York, suffering "Worst Flooding in 100 Years," but what's 100 years really? And heck, they didn't even get a hurricane, just a ratty tropical storm!)



And speaking of the hurricane turning out to be less big a deal than the worst-case scenarios, to those inside Irene's path who were dissatisfied by the outcome: Again, so sorry! What's the point of planning for those worst-case scenarios if they don't happen? This group, by the way, includes people who are offended by official "overreaction," like shutting down New York's transit system, which -- to add insult to injury -- then took hours and hours to begin to restart. Just because these folks are too stupid or too lazy to try to understand (a) why it was thought appropriate to shut the system down (and never mind all the damage that was done by the "disappointing" storm, or what would have happened if, say, populated subway trains had been trapped in flooded tunnels, or populated buses had been struck by some of those 600-plus trees that fell), (b), why the shutdown had to be announced so early and put into effect so long before the brunt of the storm was expected, and/or (c) why the system took so long to reboot (including, for example, the tiresome requirement that every foot of subway track be walked before the trains could be restarted), well, I truly am sorry.



Sorry, folks, next time we'll try to arrange a disaster that lives up to your exacting specifications -- and then just keep it to ourselves. So sorry!



ONE LAST NOTE: You may remember the expedition to Constitution Island, in the Hudson River opposite West Point, I was planning for Saturday but aborted thinking I could get up there as scheduled before the noon Metro-North shutdown but would have no way of getting back to the city from. It turns out that the great Reenactment Day festivities were canceled. The tour leader has called to my attention that there's still one more weekend opportunity to visit Constitution Island this season, on Saturday, September 24. I've got my Municipal Arts Society "Starchitecture" tour that day. I thought I might be able to slip up there in time for the tail end of the Constitution Island day, but as I read the schedules (hastily!), the earliest train I could catch would arrive at 3:02, two minutes after the last bus pickup from the station parking lot!



Oh well, as they say, wait till next year.

#

Let's Hope The CIA Doesn't Have A Libyan Augusto Pinochet Waiting In The Wings

If you're getting sick of me harping on CIA atrocities (like in Iran and Guatemala) and comparing them to what's going down in Libya... just skip right over this admittedly disturbing post and go back to reading about what a psychopath Rick Perry is.



I'm getting sick of reading all the self-congratulatory tweets and posts about how we took out the dictator in Libya. You can leave me out of that "we," if you don't mind. When "we" were making the world safe from godless Communism in southeast Asia, I decided to leave the country rather than be part of that murderous "we." Sorry, but I'm not convinced-- at least not yet-- that this is that much different. Big country stomping on little country to get it's way-- and, in this case, its oil. Let's talk about Chile and what the U.S. did down there to protect "us." By now everyone knows how the arch war-criminals Nixon and Kissinger engineered the overthrow and execution of the President of Chile and the transformation of that country's robust democracy into a horrifying fascist dictatorship. But it didn't start with Nixon and Kissinger. Presidents and Secretaries of State come and go... the CIA and a foreign policy establishment is forever-- or has been since a fascist takeover in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Turning to Glen Yeadon's Nazi Hydra in America for some background...

The CIA began covert operations in Chile following the 1958 presidential election, in which Allende came within 3 percent of winning. The next presidential election was scheduled in 1964, and Washington was determined that an avowed socialist like Allende not win.



In 1961, the Kennedy administration set up an electoral committee composed of more than 100 top-level officials from the State Department, the CIA and the White House. A parallel committee was set up in the U.S. embassy in Chile. Committee operatives laid the groundwork for the election by establishing relationships with key political figures. After channeling funds to right-wing groups, the committee decided to back a centrist, Eduardo Frei of the Christian Democratic Party. The CIA underwrote more than half of the party's expenses in the 1964 election, spending an estimated $20 million. The amount is about equal to the money spent by John F. Kennedy ($9.7 million) and Richard Nixon ($10.1 million) together in the 1964 election. The CIA took the Chilean election seriously.



The CIA spent the money on a scare campaign, with images of Russian tanks and Cuban firing squads, with extra attention on women and religion because, traditionally, women in Chile are more religious. The CIA produced massive volumes of propaganda to fill the airwaves and the press. Besides buying the press piecemeal, the agency subsidized wire services, magazines and right-wing newspapers from 1953-70.



One of the assets the CIA employed in the 1964 election was Roger Vekemans, a Belgian Jesuit who founded a network of social action organizations. Vekemans admits to receiving $5 million from the CIA, as well as a like amount of aid. The results of the 1964 election were gratifying for the CIA. Frei won the election with a commanding margin of victory. The continued operations of the CIA network kept Allende and the socialists at bay throughout the 1960s. However, no amount of propaganda can cover the lack of needed reforms and social progress.



By 1970 Allende's popularity was high and his chances in the upcoming presidential election were good. His rising popularity did not go unnoticed by the Nixon White House, which increased anti-Allende spending by $300,000. The CIA continued to use its networks in Chile against Allende. Despite all efforts by the CIA and the Nixon White House, Allende won the Sept. 4 election.



On October 24, the Chilean Congress was due to confirm the winner, assuring Allende of the presidential office. This left the Nixon White House and the CIA with seven weeks to prevent him from taking office. Nixon met with Kissinger, CIA Director Richard Helms and Attorney General John Mitchell. The Committee of 40 received authorized funds to bribe Chilean congressmen to vote against Allende, but soon abandoned the effort as unfeasible. The Nixon administration concentrated on fermenting a military coup, which would cancel the congressional vote. The White House also made it clear that an assassination was not unwelcome.



The CIA and the Nixon administration launched a new propaganda campaign to impress on the military the danger of Allende taking office. Privately, military officers were threatened with a cut in aid if Allende were seated. During this seven-week period the CIA produced more than 700 articles, broadcasts and editorials in Europe and Latin America. Journalists in the pay of the CIA from at least 10 countries traveled to Chile for on-the-spot coverage. The propaganda came with the usual communist scare tactics-- fabricated stories that Allende would nationalize everything down to the small shops. The campaign was so intense that it affected the Chilean economy negatively, inducing a financial panic...



Meanwhile, the CIA was consulting actively with several military officers receptive to a coup. It was difficult due to apolitical attitudes and support for the constitution. The prime obstacle to a military coup was the Commander and Chief of the Chilean Army, Rene Schneider, who insisted on following the constitution. The coup attempt was a direct result of a plea for action by Donald Kendall, chairman of PepsiCo, in two phone calls to the company's former lawyer, President Richard Nixon.



With time running out before Allende was seated, the CIA distributed sterilized machine guns and ammunition to some of the conspirators on the morning of October 22. That same day, Schneider was mortally wounded in an attempted kidnapping. The CIA station in Santiago cabled headquarters that Schneider had been killed with CIA weapons. The assassination did not result in a coup; instead, military officers rallied around the flag and the constitution. Two days later, Allende was seated as president. The Nixon administration responded by cutting aid to Chile, including loans from the Export-Import Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank... In addition, holding what amounted to a veto, the United States denied all loans to Chile from the World Bank during 1971-73. The following U.S. banks [almost all fascist run outfits that had been ardent Hitler supporters very recently] canceled credit to Chile: Chase Manhattan, Chemical, First National City, Manufacturers Hanover and Morgan Guaranty. The CIA provided financial support to prolong strikes, and caused panic buying to further compound shortages. The CIA and the Nixon administration were determined to bring about a complete economic collapse and widespread public unrest to defeat the Allende government and prove socialism cannot work in the Western Hemisphere...



Large U.S. corporations also helped destabilize Chile in support of a coup to remove Allende. International Telephone and Telegraph (ITT) offered $1 million to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Officials denied the offer was accepted. However, former U.S. Ambassador to Chile Edward Korry has stated in recent interviews the offer was made by former CIA Director John McCone. McCone was a member of ITT's board at the time. The Nixon White House was well aware at the time that ITT was illegally channeling money to the Republican Party. Korry also stated that Anaconda Copper and other multinationals, under the aegis of David Rockefeller's Business Group for Latin America, gave $350,000 to the CIA to bribe members of Congress.



...On Sept 11. 1973. Allende's Administration ended in a violent coup. Allende was killed after an assault on the presidential palace, where he and a group of dedicated followers made a last stand. Within twelve hours, most of the people with Allende who had survived the military assault were executed.



...The Nixon administration immediately recognized the new regime and granted it $24 million in credit for wheat previously denied the Allende government. The resulting fascist regime of Augusto Pinochet was brutally repressive. Only 19 days after the coup, a briefing paper for Kissinger showed the death toll was 1,500, including 320 summarily executed. By mid-November, U.S. intelligence estimated 13,500 people had been arrested. Others were executed, disappeared or tortured, including two Americans killed in the mass executions at the national stadium... An estimated 50,000 died at the hands of Pinochet.



But the right wingers and the CIA hail Pinochet's rule of Chile as an economic miracle. For once in power he installed the boys from Chicago, a group of Chileans educated in economics at the University of Chicago. It may have been an economic miracle for the American corporations but it certainly wasn't for the average Chilean worker. As the Boys from Chicago promptly set about dismantling all social programs and destroying unions. The statistics of this so-called economic miracle are indeed bleak, as the GNP per capita fell from 1972 to 1982 by 6.4 percent. Presently Pinochet faces charges of murder in Spain if England will extradite him. But once again we see the model repeated, a legally elected reform minded government is overthrown to be replaced by a brutal right wing dictator, corporate America gets rich at the expense of the native population. In just Guatemala and Chile the body count from the CIA and their puppet regimes total over a quarter million... Does the reader have anymore questions over the fascist nature of our foreign policy as executed by the CIA?

And about that Libyan oil, which has NOTHING-- DO YOU HEAR ME? N.O.T.H.I.N.G.-- to do with the overthrown of the Qaddafi regime in the glorious name of democracy, the New York Times had a few salient facts that slipped through yesterday.

The fighting is not yet over in Tripoli, but the scramble to secure access to Libya’s oil wealth has already begun.



...Western nations-- especially the NATO countries that provided crucial air support to the rebels-- want to make sure their companies are in prime position to pump the Libyan crude.



...Colonel Qaddafi proved to be a problematic partner for international oil companies, frequently raising fees and taxes and making other demands. A new government with close ties to NATO may be an easier partner for Western nations to deal with. Some experts say that given a free hand, oil companies could find considerably more oil in Libya than they were able to locate under the restrictions placed by the Qaddafi government.

But, of course... to the victors, the spoils. Like everywhere in all ages. “We don’t have a problem with Western countries like Italians, French and U.K. companies,” Abdeljalil Mayouf, a spokesman for the Libyan rebel oil company Agoco, was quoted by Reuters as saying. “But we may have some political issues with Russia, China and Brazil.”

How We Ever Gonna Know What Happened In Libya? From Our TVs?

Many cute tweets about the fall of the House of Qaddafi over the weekend. That was one of the cutest. But the toppling on Qaddafi wasn't Democratic policy or Republican policy. It was American policy. Unraveling what that means exactly is to face some harsh realities about our own country. Sunday-- and this really was just a coincidence-- we posted about the CIA overthrowing the legitimate, popular, elected government of Iran in 1953 and how that set up a model for violent international operations for decades. In those days the U.S. was always overthrowing good guys-- national heroes who were trying to make life better for their people, Mohammed Mosaddegh in Iran, Jacobo Árbenz, president of Guatemala, the year after the "success" in Iran, Patrice Lumumba, President of the Congo in 1961, Salvador Allende, president of Chile, a decade later. In the interim the CIA took a hand in government changes in less dramatic, less violent ways all over the world, including Greece, Italy, Japan, Australia, England, Congo... Let me quote from Glen Yeadon's book, Nazi Hydra in America:

At the end of the Second World War the US had the chance to grab the brass ring of liberty and present it to the world as a gift. Instead lead by a small cabal of Wall Street sharks and rich industrialists we were plunged into a cesspool of repression and became the spawning grounds for the fourth Reich. From earlier chapters it was shown that fascism was the end product of a capitalistic society that government failures are started by midlevel officials And finally for any revolution to be successful it requires the control over the 3Ms: the military, the media and money. This chapter has established the relationship between the CIA and money in the form of a revolving door between Wall Street and the CIA and the manipulation of the free press by the CIA as well as its close ties to Nazi war criminals. In short the CIA is a danger to the future liberty of not only US citizens but to the world. Its an agency that has served its purposes and needs to be broken into a thousand pieces and scattered to the winds as JFK threaten to do after his reelection.

What does this have to do with Libya, clearly a popular uprising against a terrible dictator? Or so it appears on our TVs. Is Qaddafi's oppression of his people-- the ostensible reason for U.S. and NATO intervention-- as bad, even nearly as bad, as what our good friend King Hamid is doing to his people in Bahrain? The brutal repression in Syria by Assad makes Qaddafi look almost benevolent.



Half a year ago, the CIA was no longer plotting to remove Qaddafi. They were on the ground removing Qaddafi. In March the NY Times, always, always, always an integral part of all U.S. imperialistic moves anywhere in the world, was reporting that the CIA had "inserted clandestine operatives into Libya to gather intelligence for military airstrikes and to contact and vet the beleaguered rebels battling Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces, according to American officials."

While President Obama has insisted that no American military ground troops participate in the Libyan campaign, small groups of C.I.A. operatives have been working in Libya for several weeks as part of a shadow force of Westerners that the Obama administration hopes can help bleed Colonel Qaddafi’s military, the officials said.



In addition to the C.I.A. presence, composed of an unknown number of Americans who had worked at the spy agency’s station in Tripoli and others who arrived more recently, current and former British officials said that dozens of British special forces and MI6 intelligence officers are working inside Libya. The British operatives have been directing airstrikes from British jets and gathering intelligence about the whereabouts of Libyan government tank columns, artillery pieces and missile installations, the officials said.



American officials hope that similar information gathered by American intelligence officers-- including the location of Colonel Qaddafi’s munitions depots and the clusters of government troops inside towns-- might help weaken Libya’s military enough to encourage defections within its ranks.



In addition, the American spies are meeting with rebels to try to fill in gaps in understanding who their leaders are and the allegiances of the groups opposed to Colonel Qaddafi, said United States government officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the activities.  American officials cautioned, though, that the Western operatives were not directing the actions of rebel forces.



A C.I.A. spokesman declined to comment.

Lotta oil in Libya. Just a coincidence, I'm sure, as the U.S. continues its unending crusade to bring democracy to every part of the world, other than Florida or Waukesha County, Wisconsin. Libya's popular uprising has every hallmark of a CIA operation. Expect bodies. If you want to find the conventional wisdom here, just put on your TV... any channel, and you'll hear how Americans are being conditioned to look at what just happened in Libya. Instead let's turn to Steve Clemons at The Atlantic: "Like Qaddafi, Saddam Hussein was also a horrendous thug whose arbitrary and brutal rule resulted in the deaths of vast numbers of his own citizens..." But Clemons didn't reprocess a CIA press handout. He says he gets "the euphoria that is sweeping amongst those who had a hand in toppling a 42-year old regime" but he definitely buys into what David Cameron is trying to sell as "a Libyan-led and Libyan-owned process with broad international support."

Image change

The fall of Moammer Qaddafi -- whose bizarre antics ranging from rambling nonsense speeches he'd give at the UN General Assembly to his proposal to "abolish Switzerland" to his personal-digs at other Arab leaders-- could easily excite anyone who spent any time studying this tormenting figure.



...I was skeptical of the Libyan intervention by the US and the rest-- but the Tuesday night when President Obama authorized action, I expressed cautious support, understanding that the humanitarian costs of letting the siege of Benghazi unfold outweighed other factors.  The US military raised concerns about managing a limited conflict where the authorization for action might lead to a long drawn-out stalemate with Qaddafi, who eventually might be able to dig himself a back door of support with nations like Russia, China, Brazil and India. 



The Pentagon's counsel in this case was important-- because the scenario the military sketched out could have come to pass-- and the impact on America's credibility would have been negative. 



As it turns out, the combination of intelligence support provided by the US, the technical and financial and logistics support provided behind the scenes by Qatar and the UAE, the military interventions by French and British forces, and more helped give the Libyan rebels an opportunity to regroup after early setbacks and push Qaddafi's forces back steadily and firmly to the battle inside Tripoli that we saw last night.  A key part of the success were the Berbers organizing their village militias west of Tripoli and pushing towards Qaddafi from one direction while the Benghazi-based rebels pushed from the other-- putting Tripoli in a vise.



Barack Obama's gamble in providing limited support for a conflict, in which other countries played lead roles, now seems like a winning move.  It's hard to replicate the conditions of Libya in other cases because Qaddafi had a habit of making unnecessary enemies-- most importantly in the Arab League, whose vote in favor of imposing a No Fly Zone over Libya was the trigger that led to everything else that has been possible.



...What Obama's intervention accomplished was giving Libyans an opportunity to own the outcome.  Obama kept the US military footprint relatively small-- occasionally getting involved in unhelpful Western posturing that took the cameras off the Libyan rebels and putting them on the West-- but on the whole, Obama kept his game to one of trying to tilt the odds, not guarantee outcomes.



This is the same kind of approach that the international community needs to take as Libya takes its next steps.  Give support, technical counsel and advice if asked, but be respectful of the process that is now going to have to evolve inside Libya to include many players and groups that have been excluded from power for decades.



That means being there if needed-- but as Cameron implied, not making Libya's next steps about us-- but rather making sure that the leaders of the next government control their own reigns.

Sounds far-fetched in light of the post-World War II history of U.S./CIA intervention in other countries. You don't rememeber? A few random thoughts-- again via Yeadon-- about our neighborly agenda in Guatemala... if you can take it:

In 1953 the CIA also intervened in Guatemala, and regarded the action as a success. For what reasons they regarded the operation as success can be only guess at for what followed was a bloody civil war that lasted 36 years. Once again this intervention fits the model perfectly. The legally elected government of Arbenz was reform minded. The center piece of his reforms was land reform. In an overwhelmingly rural nation only 2.2% of the population owned 70% of the land. Prior to the 1944 revolution and ousting of the dictatorship of Ubico, the army was used to rope farm labors together for delivery to low-land farms where they were kept as debt slaves. The expropriation of large uncultivated tracts of land to landless peasants, improvement in the rights of unions and other social reforms were hurting the bottom line of United Fruit. Arbenz even constructed a port on the Atlantic to compete against the port controlled by United Fruit, likewise a public hydro-electric plant was constructed for the same reasons.



The position of United Fruit inside Guatemala was essentially one of a country within a country. United Fruit owned the country's telephone and telegraph systems, administered the country's only Atlantic port, monopolized banana exports and a subsidiary owned the rail system. In the US United Fruit had close ties to the Dulles brothers, various state department officials, congressmen and the US Ambassador to the UN. The former CIA Director, Wlater Bedell Smith was seeking an executive position with United Fruit at the same time he was planing the Guatemala coup. He later was named to the board of directors of United Fruit.



The first plan to oust Arbenz was given by Truman as a response to Guatemala receiving arms from Czechoslovakia and the implied communism threat but was canceled. After the election of Eisenhower the plan was put into effect. The Guatemala coup also provides and ideal example of how the CIA manipulates the American opinion. After first being tried in Guatemala this technique has been employed throughout South America. It involves the CIA planting an article in the foreign press the article is then picked up by the news wires and newspapers in other countries. Besides the obvious multiplier effect upon the potential audience it has the appearance of an independent world opinion. Incidentally it was the same tactic that Bush tried to use against Clinton in the 1992 election.



The immediate after effects of the coup was draconian, within four months 72,000 was labeled as communist, many who were tortured and murdered. It is known that the U.S. Ambassador John Peurifoy had a long list of names of leaders that the successor government was to assassinate. Agrarian reform was stopped and the land already expropriated was given back to United Fruit. Union leaders turned up dead. Three quarters of the population was disenfranchised by barring illiterates from the polls and all political parties, unions and peasant organizations were outlawed...



The blood bath and carnage that followed for the next 36 years can only be described as horrific A genocidal war was carried on against the native Indians. Murders, kidnappings and disappearances became widespread and everyday occurrences as right wing death squads roamed the countryside. The report on Guatemala as a first step to reconciliation states that the army is blamed for over 200,000 deaths and disappearances. Below are some extracts from that report:

"Of the 42,000 deaths investigated in the report, the army was found to be responsible for 93 percent. Three percent were the work of the leftist Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity, and 4 percent were unresolved. The report found that 29,000 of the investigated deaths involved summary executions.



Most of the victims were civilians and Mayan Indians... [T]he government of the United States, through various agencies including the CIA, provided direct and indirect support for some state operations."



It was "clearly genocide and a planned strategy against the civilian population," said Christian Tomuschat, a German citizen who heads the three-member commission. "Government forces... blindly pursued the anti-communist fight, without respecting any legal principle or even the most elemental ethical or religious values."



In 626 massacres, the report found that government forces "completely exterminated Mayan communities, destroyed their dwellings, livestock and crops." The guerrillas were blamed for 32 such massacres, the report said."

Guatemala also provides us with the first example of the right wing death squads that have became so much a part of South American politics. Those death squads and the dictators that employ them are products of the CIA-Military intelligence system of the US. They lead directly to the School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Georgia.

So grubby compared to President Obama soaring, idealism last night:

Tonight, the momentum against the Qadhafi regime has reached a tipping point. Tripoli is slipping from the grasp of a tyrant. The Qadhafi regime is showing signs of collapsing. The people of Libya are showing that the universal pursuit of dignity and freedom is far stronger than the iron fist of a dictator.



The surest way for the bloodshed to end is simple: Moammar Qadhafi and his regime need to recognize that their rule has come to an end. Qadhafi needs to acknowledge the reality that he no longer controls Libya. He needs to relinquish power once and for all. Meanwhile, the United States has recognized the Transitional National Council as the legitimate governing authority in Libya. At this pivotal and historic time, the TNC should continue to demonstrate the leadership that is necessary to steer the country through a transition by respecting the rights of the people of Libya, avoiding civilian casualties, protecting the institutions of the Libyan state, and pursuing a transition to democracy that is just and inclusive for all of the people of Libya. A season of conflict must lead to one of peace.



The future of Libya is now in the hands of the Libyan people. Going forward, the United States will continue to stay in close coordination with the TNC. We will continue to insist that the basic rights of the Libyan people are respected. And we will continue to work with our allies and partners in the international community to protect the people of Libya, and to support a peaceful transition to democracy.

McCain and Lindsey Graham-- where was Lieberman?-- released this statement yesterday: "Americans can be proud of the role our country has played in helping to defeat Qaddafi, but we regret that this success was so long in coming due to the failure of the United States to employ the full weight of our airpower." I'm sure either would have preferred nukes, of course. Dennis Kucinich had a very different perspective last week.

In March of this year, the US, France, Britain and their North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) allies launched military operations in Libya under the guise of a "humanitarian intervention." US diplomats and world leaders carelessly voiced unsubstantiated claims of an impending massacre in Benghazi. You hear no such appeals to humanity while NATO, in the name of the rebels (whoever they are), prepares to lay siege to Tripoli, a city of nearly 2 million people.



Libyan rebels are now advancing on the capital city of Tripoli with the aid of NATO strikes; this is sure to result in a real bloodbath, as opposed to the one that was conjured in Benghazi this past winter. NATO is assisting rebels who are blocking food, water and medical supplies from coming into the capital city, and is stopping those who need advanced medical care from travelling to Tunisia to access it. NATO is bombing power stations, creating blackouts, and using Apache helicopters to attack Libyan police checkpoints to clear roads for rebels to advance.



Regardless of whether Muammar Gaddafi is ousted in coming days, the war against Libya has seen countless violations of United Nations security council resolutions (UNSCRs) by NATO and UN member states. The funnelling of weapons (now being air-dropped) to Libyan rebels was, from the beginning of the conflict, in clear violation of UNSCR 1970. The use of military force on behalf of the rebels, in an attempt to impose regime change, has undermined international law and damaged the credibility of the United Nations. Countless innocent civilians have been killed, and NATO air strikes continue to place many at great risk.



So much for the humanitarian-inspired UNSCR 1973 as a means to protect civilians. The people of Libya cannot take another month of such humanitarian intervention.



The leading donor nations of NATO-- the US, France and Great Britain-- have been free to prosecute war under the cloak of this faceless, bureaucratic, alphabet security agency, now multinational war machine, which can violate UN resolutions and kill innocent civilians with impunity. War crimes trials are only for losers. The prospective conquerors, the western powers and their rebel proxies, will then expect to be able to assert control over Libya's vast oil and natural gas reserves.



The US share of the war against Libya has probably exceeded the $1bn mark. This extraordinary amount of money for an intervention that Americans were told would last "days not weeks" could only be explained by looking at the war as an investment, and at control over Libya's wealth as an opportunity to make a return on that investment. Cynical? Then tell me why else we are at war in Libya.

The victors write the history:

House Votes To Cut Off Funding For Military In Libya-- And Also Votes To Continue Funding For Military In Libya

A meeting of the minds? Not really

Assigning motivation on non-party line votes can be pretty tricky. Thursday's failed House vote on Justin Amash's amendment (cosponsored by Dennis Kucinich) to H.R. 2219, the Defense Department Appropriations Act was exceedingly skewered... in every direction. And just 7 minutes before the amendment to cut off funds for the U.S. military to continue its role in Libya failed-- in a 199-229 roll call-- an amendment by Oklahoma Republican Tom Cole to bar the Pentagon from providing "military equipment, training or advice or other support for military activities" to Libyan rebel forces passed 225-201. 48 Democrats voted for Cole's amendment against the Obama administration. 67 Democrats voted for the Amash-Kucinich amendment, which was opposed by the administration.

There aren't any generalizations about motivation I can figure out about who voted which way for what reason on either vote. Reactionary warmongers and dedicated progressive anti-war Members were on both sides of both votes. Among progressives voting against Cole-- so in favor of continuing aid to the rebels-- were Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Barney Frank (D-MA), Judy Chu (D-CA), Keith Ellison (D-MN) Karen Bass (D-CA), and Donna Edwards (D-MD), while equally trustworthy progressives voted with Cole to cut off funds-- like Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Mike Honda (D-CA), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Chellie Pingree (D-ME), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and Jose Serrano (D-NY). On the other side of the political spectrum, you had right-wing fanatics like Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Mean Jean Schmidt (R-OH), Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Paul Broun (R-GA), Tom McClintock (R-CA), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), and Virginia Foxx (R-NC) voting to cut off funds, while equally extreme right freaks like Eric Cantor (R-VA), Paul Ryan (R-WI), Quayle's kid (R-AZ), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Mike Pence (R-IN), Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and Trent Franks (R-AZ) voted against cutting off funds. And Blue Dogs were also on both sides of the argument. Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK), Heath Shuler (Blue Dog-NC), Mike Thompson (Blue Dog-CA) and John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA) finally found something they could support Obama on (more war) while fellow rightist Democrats Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN), Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR) and Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN) incongruously voted to end funding. Crazy...

And the next vote, on Amash's amendment, was just as all over the map. Solid progressives voting to end funding included Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Jesse Jackson, Jr, (D-IL), Chellie Pingree (D-ME) Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Maxine Waters (D-CA), John Lewis (D-GA), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), and Donna Edwards (D-MD), while just as solid progressives like Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Pete Stark (D-CA), Judy Chu (D-CA), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), and Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) voted against cutting off funding. Republicans were just as mixed and matched-- with fringe loons like Sandy Adams (R-FL), Bachmann, Mean Jean, Tim Griffin (R-AR), Allen West (R-FL) and Patrick McHenry (R-NC) voting to cut off funding while radical right sociopaths like Darrell Issa (R-CA), Eric Cantor (R-VA), Mike Pence (R-IN), David Rivera (R-FL), John Kline (R-MN) Steve King (R-IA) and Dan Lungren (R-CA) voted against cutting off funds.

So how do you rate these votes when you're trying to figure out who's for peace and who's a war-monger? The AP had as hard a time figuring it out as we did.

The House is sending mixed signals on President Barack Obama's military action against Libya, voting to prohibit weapons and training to rebels looking to oust Moammar Gadhafi but stopping short of trying to cut off money for American participation in the NATO-led mission.

In a series of votes Thursday, Republicans and Democrats expressed their dissatisfaction with the Libya operation, now in its fourth month with no end in sight and waning support from some nations in the international coalition. The House voted to bar military aid to the rebels but moments later rejected efforts to prevent funding for the limited U.S. mission.

The votes mirrored the contradictory actions of the House last month, when lawmakers refused to approve the operation but declined to cut off the money.

The latest House votes came on amendments to a $649 billion defense spending bill that lawmakers hoped to finish on Friday. The overall measure covering weapons and warships, jet fighters and bombers, personnel and military pay is $9 billion less than Obama requested but $17 billion more than current levels.

It covers the Pentagon budget beginning Oct. 1 but must be reconciled with a still-to-be-completed Senate version.

The congressional unrest over Libya stems from a stalemated civil war and Obama's contention that he didn't need congressional authorization to engage in another war on top of Afghanistan and Iraq because Libya fighting isn't full-blown hostilities. Among war-weary NATO allies, Italy announced that it was reducing its participation in the campaign by removing an aircraft carrier from the region and pulling thousands of troops home.

"Libya did not attack us. Libya did not attack NATO," Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., said. "However much we detest Mr. Gadhafi and his regime, we have no reason to be at war."

The House voted 225-201 for an amendment sponsored by Cole to bar the Pentagon from providing "military equipment, training or advice or other support for military activities" to an outside group, such as rebel forces, for military action in or against Libya.

Forty-eight Democrats backed the Republican-sponsored measure.

The intent of the measure was to prohibit aid to the rebels such as weapons and assistance to their Transitional National Council, including operational planning. The broad effort also would target contractors in Libya.

Obama already has authorized $25 million in nonlethal assistance to the rebels, including thousands of meals ready to eat rations from Pentagon stocks. The U.S. also has supplied some $53 million in humanitarian aid. Neither would be affected by the bill.

Moments after that vote Thursday, the House rejected a measure that would have prohibited funds for the U.S. military to continue its limited role. The vote was 229-199, with 67 Democrats breaking with the administration to support the amendment.

"This is our moment to reclaim the Constitution of the United States," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, who co-sponsored the amendment with freshman Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich. "We have the power to determine when to go to war, not some rebel power in Benghazi."

Lawmakers argue that Obama violated the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which requires a president to seek congressional approval within 60 days of the first military strikes, a move the commander in chief did not make.

In a reflection of congressional anger toward the administration, the House voted overwhelmingly for an amendment that prohibits spending that violates the War Powers Resolution and focuses on future military operations.

The House also rejected two other efforts to prohibit funds for the U.S. military operation in Libya.

Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, criticized the House vote on aid to the rebels, arguing that it sends the wrong message to Gadhafi and those challenging the long-time leader.

"I am saddened by the abandonment of America's traditional support for those struggling for freedom and democracy, which has been a hallmark of our Republican Party for decades," said the Arizona Republican, who traveled to Benghazi in April to meet with the rebels.

At least McCain was consistent. He's always in favor of war-- any war, anywhere for any reason at all.

Those aren't "hostilities" we're engaged in with Libya -- I guess it's more of a, you know, tiff

The Republican view of presidential power c2007

by Ken

No doubt you caught the Obama administration's response to the charge that the president has exceeded the permissible "Go to War Free" -- i.e., without congressional approval -- period prescribed by the War Powers Act (1973). Here's how Charlie Savage and Mark Landler reported it in the NYT:

The White House, pushing hard against criticism in Congress over the deepening air war in Libya, asserted Wednesday that President Obama had the authority to continue the military campaign without Congressional approval because American involvement fell short of full-blown hostilities.

In a 38-page report sent to lawmakers describing and defending the NATO-led operation, the White House said the mission was prying loose Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s grip on power. . . . [T]he report asserted that “U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops.”

I don't know where on earth anyone would get the idea that we're engaged in hostilities with Libya. But "hostilities," as specified by the War Powers Act? Not a bit of it. Oh sure, in the heat of the moment harsh words may have been exchanged, and I suppose a fussbudget could quibble over all those bombs we've dropped, and assorted other military expenditures (which, however, "do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces," according to the administration report, "nor do they involve U.S. ground troops”), for which the tab, as Savage and Landler report the White House acknowledging, has run up to $716 million in the first two months and "at the current scale of operations" will rise to $1.1 billion by September.

But "hostilities"? Not that anyone in the administration can tell. In a joint interview, the Timesmen report, State Department legal adviser Harold Koh and White House counsel Robert Bauer --

contended that American forces had not been in “hostilities” at least since early April, when NATO took over the responsibility for the no-fly zone and the United States shifted to primarily a supporting role -- providing refueling and surveillance to allied warplanes, although remotely piloted drones operated by the United States periodically fire missiles, too.

It doesn't seem likely that the report is going to satisfy the demand made by House Speaker "Sunny John" Boehner for a legal justification for passing the congressional reporting deadline. After all, Sunny John is a veritable tiger when it comes to enforcing the spirit and letter of the War Powers Act, as he showed throughout the warmongering years of the Bush regime.

Ha ha ha! Sometimes I just make myself laugh. Sunny John doesn't give a damn about war powers, or any other executive powers, unless they're being exercised by a Democratic excecutive. Savage and Landler note:

The escalating confrontation with Congress reflects the radically altered political landscape in Washington: a Democratic president asserting sweeping executive powers to deploy American forces overseas, while Republicans call for stricter oversight and voice fears about executive-branch power getting the United States bogged down in a foreign war.

All those years when "Big Dick" Cheney and his Puppet Prez Chimpy were using their 100 percent bogus "doctrine" of the "unitary executive" to expand executive powers in a way never before dreamt by American pols, nothing was heard from Republicans in either house except cheering -- and vicious invective and even threats directed against "Bush-bashers."

But then, Republicans are never called to account for even the most flagrant of their lies and the most blatant of their hypocrisies. A colleague notes the irony (again, not really the right word) of the proposed prohibition, in the House Appropriations Committee's proposed Fiscal Year 2012 Financial Services Appropriations Bill, of the Executive Office of the President's use of funds "to prepare 'signing statements,' which has been used in the past to undermine or circumvent laws passed by Congress." The colleague points out that when the House Judiciary Committee, then chaired by Democrat John Conyers Jr., tried briefly in 2007 to look into the matter of presidential signing statements, the subject was dismissed out of hand and ridiculed by Rpublican Ranking Member (now Committee Chairman) Lamar Smith.

Another colleague, while recognizing the total hypocrisy of the current Republican pushbacks against executive authority, syas we ought nevertheless to go along with their efforts, on the theory that it's at least a way to get some executive limitations legislated. It's a point, I suppose, but a point that misses the point, it seems to me. Congressional Republicans will never attempt to apply any such restrictions against a Republican president, and Congressional Democrats, as we've seen, will never attempt to apply such restrictions against a president of either party.

#

Is Congress Going To Force Obama To Stop Bombing Libya?

Good thing we didn't elect any of these warmongers president

I was hardly out of the country for a day when one of the local congressmen from around here, Brad Sherman (D-CA)-- who, because of redistricting, is going to be in an ugly primary battle with corrupt hawk Howard Berman-- offers an amendment to a military appropriations bill... and, unexpectedly, gets it passed by a vote of 248 to 163.

Sherman's amendment, which states that "none of the funds made available by this act may be used in contravention of the War Powers Act," is exactly the same as the one that failed 2 weeks ago-- rescued by a weaker, toothless, amendment offered by Boehner. Obama has 2 days to respond to that one. This one passed as part of the overall appropriations bill, H.R. 2055, yesterday.

When Berman's amendment was voted on Monday 138 Republicans and 110 Democrats voted for it; only 93 Republicans and 70 Democrats voted against it. Both the Republican Leader, Cantor, and the Democratic Leader, Pelosi, voted against it. Anti-war leaders on both sides of the aisle-- Kucinich (D-OH), Grijalva (D-AZ), Edwards (D-MD), Lewis (D-GA), Jones (R-NC), and Johnson (IL) voted for it. Most of the Blue Dogs voted for Obama's position-- NO-- for a change.

The amendment doesn't seem likely to pass the Senate... but you never know. Meanwhile, Qaddafi sent a thank you letter to Boehner for his help in undermining the U.S. position. During World War II Republicans conspired with Hitler against FDR and, in fact, the German's virtually underwrote most of the GOP election campaign against Roosevelt in 1940. Now we'll have to see if Qaddafi starts sending the Republicans money for their support. It may not even be illegal now that the Supreme Court has opened up campaign financing. Last year China underwrote much of the Republican campaign to retake the House and win several Senate seats, particularly for pro-China extremists Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Pat Toomey (R-PA).

Making War In Libya... For Goldman Sachs And J.P. Morgan?

An overwhelming majority of Americans don't like our involvement in the bombing campaign against Libya but whether you think that what looks like the congressional wrist slap goes far enough, the resolution Webb and Corker are proposing on that war, it certainly guarantees that there will be a debate on U.S. policies there and-- at least in theory-- if Obama can't make an argument on the merits (and so far he hasn't been able to), then Congress will be bound to restrain the executive branch over reach. That would be a first in many decades. This is the press release that went out with S.J.Res, 18 this week:

Senators Jim Webb (D-VA) and Bob Corker (R-TN) today introduced a joint resolution requiring the Administration to provide a detailed justification of U.S. operations in Libya and prohibiting the deployment of U.S. troops on the ground there. It further calls on the President to request authorization for the continuation of U.S. involvement in NATO activities and states that Congress should fully debate such a request expediently. Nearly 90 days after the initiation of force in Libya, such debate has not occurred.

The bipartisan resolution states, “The President has failed to provide Congress with a compelling rationale based upon United States national security interests for current United States military activities regarding Libya.” It calls for an unclassified report to provide essential information to Congress and the American public to evaluate U.S. involvement in Libya and appropriately debate it.

“When we examine the conditions under which the President ordered our military into action in Libya, we are faced with the prospect of a very troubling historical precedent that has the potential to haunt us for decades,” said Senator Webb. “The issue for us to consider is whether a President-- any President-- can unilaterally begin, and continue, a military campaign for reasons that he alone defines as meeting the demanding standards worthy of risking American lives and expending billions of dollars of our taxpayers’ money. It is important for Congress to step in and clearly define the boundaries of our involvement.”

“It has now been more than 80 days since the United States first launched military action in Libya in what was supposed to be only a very limited operation, but neither the Congress nor the American people have any clearer view of the administration’s stated mission or end game for our military involvement in Libya. Having been denied answers, repeatedly, to these fundamental questions or even a comprehensive debate to consider the merits of U.S. involvement in such an engagement, it’s long past time to set a final deadline to get the information every man and woman who puts on a uniform and every taxpayer who funds the operation deserves,” Senator Corker said.

The joint resolution, which would have the force of law, requires the Administration to publicly answer a detailed series of questions about the Libya operation within 14 days of enactment. Parts of the resolution mirror bills passed in the House of Representatives.

Someplace Webb and Corker don't have the imaginations or the will to go is to ask what the hell we're doing bombing the hell out of this small country in the first place. Why Libya instead of, say, Syria or Bahrain, each of which is doing far worse to its citizens, the ostensible "reason" we're involved with this massive attack on Libya? In a pair of powerful investigative articles that would do far more credit to the Senate than the toothless joint resolution, journalist Russ Baker posits that evidence makes it clear that Qaddafi has been set up and that the U.S. in part of a plan to create an “Arab Spring” for the Good Old Boys-- CIA, banks, oil companies. Hopefully, you've been following Matt Taibbi's exciting reporting on the relationship between Qaddafi and the bandits at Goldman Sachs.

Libya was eager to join the big leagues of finance, and its investors were “awed” by an Arabic-speaking Goldman executive who urged them into an options deal that bet on the fortunes of companies including Citigroup Inc. C +0.23% , Allianz DE:ALV -1.33% and Italy’s UniCredit IT:UCG +2.08%.

The LIA, Libya’s sovereign wealth fund, was charmed by the demonstration and decided to go all-in with a $1.5 billion bet. Goldman very quickly lost them 98 percent of that money.

I never knew it was even possible to lose 98 percent of an investment that quickly. If you sent a blind, three-legged donkey into Caesar’s palace with $1.5 billion in chips, it could probably stay solvent longer than this options package Goldman sold to Qaddafi.

How could the Libyans be enticed to take such a crappy deal? See if this sounds familiar: according to the Wall Street Journal, the Libyan fund manager felt that Goldman had "misrepresented" the fantastic investment opportunity Goldman sold to them, and also made trades "without proper authorization."

...Having managed to get their bankers out of Libya with their heads still attached to their shoulders, Goldman decided to make up for losing $1.5 billion of Qaddafi’s money by offering the international pariah a $3.7 billion equity stake that would have made him one of the largest single owners of the bank.

In con-man parlance, this is called the reload. You beat someone in a Ponzi scheme for his life’s savings, and when he shows up at your door with an axe, you get him to mortgage his house to buy a stake in the Brooklyn Bridge. After blowing $1.5 billion of Libya’s money almost instantaneously, Goldman’s solution to the problem was to immediately get Qaddafi reaching back into his pocket for a cash sum over twice the size of the original losses. It’s really hard not to admire the sheer balls of the whole deal.

Baker starts by asking if there is any actual evidence that the claims by Qaddafi’s defecting Justice Minister, Mustafa Mohamed Abud Al Jeleil, that Qaddafi was the culprit behind the bombing of Pan Am 103 are true. "This story," he points out, "made it into major news media throughout the world, without anyone stopping to raise questions about the propaganda benefit of the statement, or of the timing." And though no one has seen any of the promised "evidence," the original headlines did the trick-- anyone watching television or reading stories then would have been led to believe that Qaddafi was behind the Lockerbie tragedy. That's when Obama called on Qaddafi to step down and started down the road to the "humanitarian" attacks on Tripoli.

By December 2010, when a Tunisian man set himself on fire, the Arab Spring revolt was under way—in Egypt, Bahrain, and elsewhere. Pretty quickly, it was clear to everyone that the Western powers were in danger of losing crucial oil suppliers—and vital military bases.
It certainly was convenient that, right about that time, Libya showed signs of moving in the opposite direction-- into the US camp. Read our piece here about the CIA ties to the Libyan uprising.

Then consider the timing of February’s ramped-up claim by the defecting Libyan official, that Qaddafi himself had ordered the Lockerbie bombing.

If that wasn’t enough in the propaganda department to get the global public worked up, next came the Libya rape story. The average person doesn’t have the time or appetite to follow the kinds of complex corporate maneuverings that fascinate us here, but they do understandably get upset about bombs on civilian aircraft and rape.

...We noted the timing of the story, the alacrity with which the Western press grabbed it and spread it, and the simple fact that there’s no evidence tying Qaddafi in any way to any such act. Even the woman herself doesn’t claim that.  Yet it infuriated untold millions and postings all over the Web show that it moved a lot of public opinion into the column supporting military action to remove the Libyan leader.

That the corporate media cannot see what is going on here, or refuses to see, tells us how far we have not come since the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

Still, we can hear the other shoe dropping if we listen carefully enough. For example, the website Politico ran a little item the other day on a powwow between Hillary Clinton and corporate executives over business opportunities in Iraq.

FIRST LOOK: WALL STREET IN IRAQ? – Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Deputy Secretary Tom Nides (formerly chief administrative officer at Morgan Stanley) will host a group of corporate executives at State this morning as part of the Iraq Business Roundtable. Corporate executives from approximately 30 major U.S. companies-- including financial firms Citigroup, JPMorganChase and Goldman Sachs-- will join U.S. and Iraqi officials to discuss economic opportunities in the new Iraq. Full list of corporate participants.

Give it a couple of years, and they’ll be having the same party celebrating a more sympathetic regime in Libya.