Senator Mike Gravel Interview

Former Alaska Senator and Democratic Presidential Candidate Mike Gravel discusses his plan for the Congress to criminalize the Iraq war, the cowardice of the Congress, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards’s aggressive position against Iran, his proposal for opening of friendly relations with them instead, how the Iraq war has strengthened Iran’s position in the region, the neoconservatives’ doctrine of global hegemony, Iran’s nuclear program, his plan for direct democracy and the U.S. military’s war against their veterans.

Antiwar Radio: Sen Mike Gravel [58:54m]: Hide Player | Play in Popup | Download

Posted by Scott

New Tape Suggests Kennedy Assassination Inside Job

May 1, 2007 1:27 PM

AUDIO: Tape suggests JFK assassination was inside job

An audio file serving as the final testimony of CIA veteran and convicted Watergate conspirator, E. Howard Hunt on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy has surfaced.

It has been distilled down from a 20-minute tape made by Hunt at his home in Miami, according to his oldest son with whom E. Howard Hunt had enjoyed a good relationship in later life.

The unmarked cassette was received in the mail by his oldest son, Saint John Hunt, in Janurary 2004. At the time, the 86-year-old E. Howard Hunt was not well. According to Saint John Hunt, his father's only request was that the information not be released until his death. Shortly thereafter, he recovered from his illness and he would not die until January of 2007. The tape remained in Saint John Hunt's hands the entire time.

According to Saint John Hunt, the existence of the tape was unknown by his extended family until its broadcast on "Coast to Coast Live with Ian Punnett" on April 27, 2007. Many of the details of the tape were included in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine published earlier in the month.

The contents of the tape are consistent with E. Howard Hunt's CIA career. He was a significant team member of many CIA "wet ops," that is, bloody operations such as the violent overthrow of the democratically-elected Guatetamalan government of Jacobo Arbenz in 1954 and the assassination of Che Guevara. The Guatemalan civil war that resulted from the CIA-backed coup would eventually lead to the deaths of 200,000 people.

In his lifetime, E. Howard Hunt often would be glib about his roles in these "wet ops" and saw them as a kind of patriotic duty for which he was uniquely suited. He was urbane, well-connected and well-educated. He published over 85 spy novels and enjoyed the respect and companionship of many of Washington's conservative elite such as William F. Buckley who wrote the forward to Hunt's most recent memoirs.

But despite many allegations over the years, E. Howard Hunt had always denied until any involvement in the assassination of JFK. In 1978, Hunt testified under oath to Congress that neither he nor the CIA had had anything to do with the murder of the president.

According to this tape, he was only half-lying.

The "wet op" that was pulled off in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963 may not have been orchestrated by the CIA proper but rather was put together by several CIA veterans and contract players-for-fire in a "non-sanctioned" hit originally "suggested" by then Vice-President Lyndon B. Johnson. One of the many purposes of this tape, according to E. Howard Hunt, was to make clear of LBJ's involvement in the assassination.

Perhaps as a way of justifying the assassination, Hunt seems focused on establishing the "chain of command" to this action that allows him to see himself as following orders toward a greater patriotic goal.

On the tape, the man Hunt refers to as "Frank" is, according to written notes taken by Saint John Hunt, CIA Operative and later Watergate co-conspirator Frank Sturgis sometimes spelled "Sturgess." The mastermind appears to be Cord Meyer.

Dave Phillips was also a CIA Operative in Central and South America.

This tape also confirms the long-held suspicion that David Morales was a key member of the assassination team.

What is not on the tape is "Lucien Sartie," the man that Hunt, according to his son, confirmed earlier as the Corsican-born French contract hitman who was flown in to take the "head shot" at JFK from behind the Grassy Knoll.

What is not on this tape is motive but that is attested in other testimony.

These men allegedly hated Kennedy.

They saw him as soft on Communism, soft on Castro, guilty of sending their friends to their torture and deaths during the Bay of Pigs fisasco and a bad risk for the future of the country. They also did not respect him as a person for his philandering and other behaviors which had yet to become public knowledge but would have been known to them.

They were also resentful of the way that the White House had been treating the CIA through Kennedy's disdainful public posture on intelligence and the firings of many of their former associates.

In sum, with the permission of LBJ, Cord Meyer, David Phillips, David Morales, E. Howard Hunt conspired to create a "non-official" hit "for the good of the country."

And here, finally, is the taped testimony that proves that once and for all.

Photo Copyright Getty Images

A Peaceful Solution

Apr 29 2007

Posted by: Jay

written by Willie & Amy Nelson on April 29th, 2007
at 3:03am on the bus in California, on the way to Coachella.

There is a peaceful solution. It’s called a peace revolution.
Now let’s take back America.
There’s a war and we’re in it, but I know we can win it.
So let’s take back America.

It’s a dream, so believe it.
Now get ready to receive it.
And let’s take back America.

And when the war is over and we’ve won it
let’s remember how we done it so we don’t have to do it again.

There is a peaceful solution. It’s called a peace revolution.
Now let’s take back America.
There’s a war and we’re in it, but I know we can win it.
Now let’s take back America.

There was a peace resolution
and a peaceful revolution
and the peaceful solution saved America

Hear Willie sing it A cappella.

Gareth Porter explains the the massive loopholes in the Democrat’s bogus withdrawal plan

Journalist and historian Gareth Porter explains the the massive loopholes in the Democrat’s bogus withdrawal plan, the false premise of both parties that al Qaeda in Iraq would be anything but doomed if the U.S. left, the question of neocon malevolence versus incompetence, the possibility of war with Iran, whether talks with that country could just be used as a further excuse for war when they “fail,” the first Democratic presidential debate blues and the common assumption that if the U.S. did leave, that the civil war will get worse.

Antiwar Radio: Gareth Porter [41:00m]: Hide Player | Play in Popup | Download

Posted by Scott Digg ThisComments (7)

"The Most Lawless War of Our Generation": The U.S. Sponsored War In Somalia

Related
Massacre in Mogadishu--war crime made in the USA
---
Friday, April 27th, 2007
"The Most Lawless War of Our Generation" - FPublishmr. UN Spokesperson on Somalia

Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream

---

In Somali, fierce clashes in Mogadishu are being described as some of the heaviest fighting in the city's history. Some 329 people have been killed over the past ten days. This comes just three weeks after another series of battles claimed at least 1,000 lives. The United Nations says more people - over 350,000 - have been displaced in Somalia in the past three months than anywhere else in the world. [includes rush transcript]

---

In Somalia, clashes between U.S. backed-Ethiopian forces and fighters aligned with the Islamic Courts Union in the capital Mogadishu are being described as some of the heaviest fighting in the city's history.

Local human rights workers report at least 329 people have been killed over the past ten days. This comes just three weeks after another series of battles claimed at least 1,000 lives.

The fighting began in December when US-backed Ethiopian forces invaded Somalia. Four months ago today, Islamic fighters abandoned the capital, marking the official fall of the Islamic Courts Union, which had controlled Mogadishu for six months last year.

A humanitarian catastrophe now looms over Somalia. The United Nations says more people have been displaced in Somalia in the past three months than anywhere else in the world. Some 350,000 have fled fighting in Mogadishu since February, more than one-third of its population. That makes the rate of displacement in Somalia over the past three months worse than Iraq. Many of the those displaced are camped on the outskirts of Mogadishu and lack food, medicine and clean water. There is also concern for those trapped inside the capital where more than 600 people have died from acute diarrhea and cholera.

• John Holmes, United Nations emergency relief coordinator: "There are stocks available in the area. If we can sort out the access problems, if we can step up our presence, in particular if we could achieve a ceasefire in Mogadishu and the surrounding area, then I think we will be able to cope with the problem, with some difficulty. But if the fighting continues at its present intensity, if there is no halt in that, if there is no political progress made, then we could indeed be facing a very serious situation indeed. I think already this is one of the biggest movement of population, displacement of population we've seen this year, in terms of numbers, particularly in terms of comparative numbers, compared to the populations of Mogadishu or indeed of Somalia as a whole, greater in that sense than Darfur or eastern Chad, and the problems there are serious enough."

Prime Minister Ali Mohamed Ghedi said on Thursday his forces were now in control of Mogadishu and the BBC reports for the first time in nine days, gunfire has stopped. Ethiopians and government troops are patrolling the city conducting house-to-house searches as residents collect rotting bodies that had been abandoned in the streets.

The escalating war in Somalia has received little attention in the U.S. media especially on broadcast television. Using the Lexis database, Democracy Now examined ABC, NBC and CBS's coverage of Somalia in the evening newscasts over the past three months. The result may surprise you: ABC and NBC has not mentioned the war at all. CBS mentioned the war once. The network dedicated a total of three sentences to the story.

• Salim Lone, a columnist for the Daily Nation in Kenya and a former spokesperson for the UN mission in Iraq.

---

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...

AMY GOODMAN: In Somalia, fierce fighting has killed over 320 people over the past ten days. This comes just three weeks after another series of battles claimed at least a thousand lives. Agence France-Presse described Thursday’s clashes in Mogadishu as some of the heaviest fighting in the city’s history.

The fighting began in December when US-backed Ethiopian forces invaded Somalia. Four months ago today, Islamic fighters abandoned the capital, marking the official fall of the Council of Islamic Courts, which had controlled Mogadishu for six months last year.

A humanitarian catastrophe now looms over Somalia. The United Nations says more people have been displaced in Somalia in the past three months than anywhere else in the world. Some 350,000 people have fled fighting in Mogadishu since February, more than a third of its population. That makes the rate of displacement in Somalia over the past three months worse than Iraq. Many of the those displaced are camped on the outskirts of Mogadishu and lack food, medicine and clean water. There is also concern for those trapped inside the capital where more than 600 people have died from acute diarrhea and cholera.

This is UN relief coordinator John Holmes.

JOHN HOLMES: There are stocks available in the area. If we can sort out the access problems, if we can step up our presence, in particular if we could achieve a ceasefire in Mogadishu and the surrounding area, then I think we will be able to cope with the problem, with some difficulty. But if the fighting continues at its present intensity, if there is no halt in that, if there is no political progress made, then we could indeed be facing a very serious situation indeed. I think already this is one of the -- the biggest movement of population, displacement of population we've seen this year, in terms of numbers, particularly in terms of comparative numbers, compared to the populations of Mogadishu or indeed of Somalia as a whole, greater in that sense than Darfur or eastern Chad, and the problems there are serious enough.

AMY GOODMAN: Prime Minister Ali Mohamed Ghedi said Thursday his forces were now in control of Mogadishu. The BBC reports, for the first time in nine days, gunfire has stopped. Ethiopians and government troops are patrolling the city conducting house-to-house searches, as residents collect rotting bodies that have been abandoned in the streets.

The escalating war in Somalia has received little attention in the US media especially on broadcast television. Using the Lexis database, Democracy Now! examined ABC, NBC and CBS's coverage of Somalia in the evening newscasts over the past three months. The result may surprise you: ABC and NBC has not mentioned the war at all. CBS mentioned the war once on a Sunday night news broadcast. The network dedicated a total of three sentences to the story.

Salim Lone is a columnist for the Daily Nation in Kenya and a former spokesperson for the UN mission in Iraq. He joins us today from London. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Salim.

SALIM LONE: Thank you for covering Somalia, Amy. As you said, the coverage is absolutely shameless.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, first, Salim, can you describe who the fighting forces are and who's behind them?

SALIM LONE: Well, I mean, the key country there is Ethiopia. Their occupation forces have been there, in fact, long before the actual war began. They came in around September, October. But at the moment, those fighting the Ethiopians and the nominal transitional central government, which is really an absolutely puppet -- it’s quite hapless. In fact, the Ethiopians don't even deal with Somalis that their fighting through the transitional government. They go directly to the elders of the clans to try to negotiate ceasefires. But those fighting them are obviously the Hawiye Clan fighters who dominate Mogadishu. I mean, historically, they're the largest clan in there. But there are also many others, not just Islamists, which is a codeword for terrorists, but there are many Somalis. In fact, most Somalis will not abide this occupation. I mean, this is what is most distressing about this fighting. All fighting is terrible, but you hope in the end something good comes out of it. But in this particular case, it is clear Somalis will not abide the Ethiopian occupation or the government they put in place there. So it is not going to be a successful war for the Somali government, for Ethiopia and, of course, for the US, which is the orchestrator of the whole adventure this time.

AMY GOODMAN: Salim Lone, you're now in London. The British think tank Chatham House criticized the US role in the war. The authors of the report write, “In an uncomfortably familiar pattern, general multilateral concern to support the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Somalia has been hijacked by unilateral actors, especially Ethiopia and the United States.”

SALIM LONE: Well, you know, this is par for the course these days. What they also should have mentioned -- but it’s an excellent report, by the way. I really enjoyed reading it, and I’m so glad they were so candid. But one of the big issues here is not merely the unilateralism of the United States, but the inability of the international community and particularly the United Nations Security Council to try to play, if not an independent role, at least a moderating role. It is quite astonishing that for now three months, there has been terrible violence in Somalia, and yet we have not heard anything from the security council about how this carnage must stop. There is no interest whatsoever.

You know the death toll. I mean, you've given all the details. I don't want to go into it. But let me add that women are being raped, that hospitals are being bombed. This is clearly a huge effort to intimidate and terrorize all those who come from clans who are fighting the government. They want to intimidate the civilians, because most of the death toll is of civilians. So this has been going on, and there has been no call whatsoever for this to stop.

You had Sir John Holmes there. He's a Brit, who -- I don't know him personally, so I cannot speak for him. But clearly, he has been appointed, in fact, by the British to his crucial position as chief of humanitarian affairs.

So we are seeing the Security Council completely silent while these atrocities are going on. We are seeing Western governments completely silent. Nothing has come out of Washington. Nothing has come out of London. We now see, for the first time on Wednesday, the ambassador of Germany -- and Germany holds the EU presidency now -- the ambassador released a letter, which he had sent to Abdullah Yusuf, the president of the transitional government. It is a very candid and a very strong letter, and that's wonderful. However, where was Germany? Where was the EU for all this period? Their silence has really given the green light for the Ethiopians to do the terrible things they've been doing.

The death toll now in Somalia is greater than it was in Lebanon. And you will recall, of course, that even then, the big powers -- the US, UK, even initially the UN -- did not demand a ceasefire. But the world media was full of that story, and there were condemnations around the world for what the Israelis were doing. But, of course, Somalis and Africans don't count as nearly much, because there has just been no international outcry at all. It’s not just the media. So we really have a problem there.

AMY GOODMAN: Salim Lone, we're going to break and come back to this discussion. We'll also play a comment or interaction in the State Department on what is happening right now in Somalia. Salim Lone, columnist for the Daily Nation in Kenya, joining us from Britain. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Salim Lone. He is the former spokesperson for the UN mission in Iraq. He’s a columnist for the Daily Nation in Kenya and is joining us right now from London. Salim, I wanted to talk to you about the US role in all of this. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with the Ethiopian foreign minister on April 23. At a news conference the next day, State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack said the two had discussed the presence of Ethiopian troops in Somalia. McCormack said the troops had “no desire to stay there any longer than they are needed,” but that they didn't want to withdraw to, quote, open up a -- “vacuum open up in Somalia.” A reporter questioned him about his comments. This is an excerpt.

REPORTER: Does it concern you at all that your little -- your opening readout, your opening statements, with the exception of some of the proper names, could have applied exactly to the situation in Iraq right now? Does that bother -- does that concern you at all?

SEAN McCORMACK: I'm not sure I see your point, Matt.

REPORTER: That the Ethiopians say that they don't want to stay there any longer than they're needed, but they don't want to leave a vacuum. It just sounds --

SEAN McCORMACK: Right.

REPORTER: -- an awful lot like they're taking a page from the administration's thoughts on what to do in Iraq.

SEAN McCORMACK: No. I mean, they're --

REPORTER: But I guess -- so my question is, are you concerned that they might be seeing the beginning or the -- in fact, the middle of an Iraq-style insurgency going on, obviously not directed at US soldiers --

SEAN McCORMACK: Right. Right, right, right.

REPORTER: -- but the same kind of thing. Are you concerned about that?

SEAN McCORMACK: The situations are completely separate. They are -- you know, each are sui generis, but you are in each case concerned about leaving the field to a group of violent extremists who do not have an interest in building up the institutions of a democratic state, so in that sense, in that sense, there are similarities. I think certainly the specifics of each situation are quite different, and the histories are quite different. And I think the level of intensity of fighting in Iraq is quite different than you're seeing in Somalia, and the scale of it is a lot smaller.

AMY GOODMAN: State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack. The reporter went on to ask him whether the United States is calling for a ceasefire.

REPORTER: Are you calling for a ceasefire in Somalia, or are you urging the Ethiopians to go for these insurgents with as much intensity as they could?

SEAN McCORMACK: You don't want to see any more violence in Somalia. Everybody would like that to be the case, but there are clearly people there, individuals who are intent upon using violence in order to further a so-called political cause. And we have seen that in other areas around the world. And what can't be allowed to happen is for those forces to gain a foothold to develop a safe haven, from which they could possibly launch attacks against other states in the region and further.

REPORTER: So you're not calling for a ceasefire?

SEAN McCORMACK: We want to see an end to the violence. But the real way to get an end to the violence is (a) stabilize the security situation, and (b) find a political situation that is workable for the major political factions in Somali life that have an interest in actually building a different kind of Somalia, as opposed to the one we've seen for the past few decades.

AMY GOODMAN: State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack. Salim Lone, columnist for the Daily Nation in Kenya, your response?

SALIM LONE: Well, I mean, I’m very interested in the Iraq analogy, and it is really multiple, apart from what was already said there. The contrasts are striking, as well. But let me add to the analogy, actually, that May 1 is approaching. That was the day when on the -- right after the war, President Bush said that his mission had been accomplished. We have the same statement coming out of the prime minister of Somalia yesterday, that the mission has been accomplished and the insurgents have been wiped out.

But let's look at the other contrasts, which are very fascinating. In Iraq, the world body, the Security Council, for the first time in many years since the Soviet Union collapsed, stood up to the United States and refused, despite enormous pressure, to authorize a UN war in Iraq. In Somalia's case, it is precisely the opposite.

To begin with, the lawlessness of this particular war is astounding. I mean, this is the most lawless war of our generation. You know, all aggressive wars are illegal. But in this particular one, there have been violations of the Charter and gross violations of international human rights, but these are commonplace. But, in addition, there have been very concrete violations by the United States, to begin with, of two Security Council resolutions. The first one was the arms embargo imposed on Somalia, which the United States has been routinely flaunting for many years now. But then the US decided that that resolution was no longer useful, and they pushed through an appalling resolution in December, which basically gave the green light to Ethiopia to invade. They pushed through a resolution which said that the situation in Somalia was a threat to international peace and security, at a time when every independent report indicated, and Chatham House’s report on Wednesday also indicated, that the Islamic Courts Union had brought a high level of peace and stability that Somalia had not enjoyed in sixteen years.

So here was the UN Security Council going along with the American demand to pass a blatantly falsified UN resolution. And that resolution actually was a violation. It contravened the UN Charter. You know, the UN Charter is like the American Constitution. Legislators pass laws, but they have to be in conformity with the Constitution. In this particular case, the Charter is the UN’s constitution, and the Security Council cannot -- it's not allowed to really pass laws or rules that violate the Charter. And yet, who is going to correct them? So this --

AMY GOODMAN: Salim Lone, on April 8, the New York Times reported that the Bush administration recently allowed Ethiopia to complete a secret arms purchase from North Korea, in violation of international sanctions. The US allowed the arms delivery to go through in January, shortly after Ethiopia invaded Somalia, from North Korea. Salim?

SALIM LONE: Well, I mean, this just, you know, shows the lawlessness, the complete lack of pretense, even, to try to honor these resolutions. The big powers decide what resolutions are passed. But now what we see is the big powers then decide, are we actually going to honor the resolution that we just passed?

I mean, I want to give you an incredible example of how the Security Council has become a plaything almost. There was a time when Security Council resolutions had gravitas. For example, everybody knew Resolution 242, asking Israel to vacate the Occupied Territories in exchange for peace. But now, it’s a plaything.

And I want to give the example of the bombings in Spain in the year 2004. Just before the Spanish election, there was this terrible atrocity, as you know. About 200 people, Spaniards, were killed in the terrorist attacks on the trains. Because it was on the eve of the election, the Aznar government, afraid that if it was known that this attack was by terrorists, might lose the election, got the US to support a Security Council resolution which condemned the Basque separatists for the attack. And the Security Council went along with that. I mean, a day later, it became clear that it was a total lie. So the Security Council resolutions really have no meaning now, because they can be passed and violated at will, especially by the United States.

AMY GOODMAN: Salim Lone, the Dow Jones newswire has recently reported that the US-backed Somali prime minister wants to pass a new oil law to encourage foreign oil companies to return to Somalia. Royal Dutch Shell, ConocoPhillips, Chevron Corporation once had exploration contracts in Somalia, but the companies left the country in 1991. How significant is this in the US involvement in Somalia today?

SALIM LONE: Well, you know, as you’ve discussed before, Somalia itself and the region, the Horn of Africa, is newly oil-rich. Kenya has some oil. Oil is the key to domination for the United States -- global domination, I mean. But it is going about, you know, the wrong way to get that oil. The US is also worried that its welcome in the Middle East is diminishing, and they need to make sure -- both they want to encircle the Middle East with the oil field, and they want to make sure they have Somalia and other countries handy for the oil.

But this -- you know, the prime minister’s attempt to lure Western oil companies is on a par with his crying wolf about al-Qaeda at every turn. Every time you interview a Somalia official, the first thing you hear is al-Qaeda and terrorists. They’re using that. No one believes it. No one believes it at all, because all independent reports say the contrary. But they are using that to try to develop support.

And, you know, this is why it is so important. Europe has now been coming into the forefront with its concern. It had this report about major human rights violations had occurred a month ago in Mogadishu. And the Europeans are afraid that they might be complicit in those, because they were supporting the warring -- the groups that were committing those atrocities. Germany, as I said, released that letter on Wednesday. Even the American ambassador has written to Abdullah Yusuf, the president. I mean, they are really writing letters to the Somali president. They will not raise this issue in the Security Council. They will not raise this issue in Washington or London. They want to keep this as a small African issue.

And it is so important for all of us to put pressure on the governments in Europe, in particular, and on Africa, too. I mean, Africa is weak. It cannot really take strong stands. In my own country, Kenya, we have played a terrible role in these extraordinary renditions and Guantanamo Bay that are going on. But, of course, one leading opposition, the candidate in Kenya, said that the US has promised to support the government in the elections at the end of this year in exchange for the terrible things it has been doing. So Africa is weak --

AMY GOODMAN: Salim Lone, I want to ask you quickly, as you talk about Guantanamo, this secret prison in Ethiopia -- not clear how many people are being held there, if this is one of the black sites, one of the prisons that are not very well known about in the world that the US is involved with. But we do know that Amir Mohamed Meshal is there. He is a New Jersey young man from Tinton Falls. Jonathan Landay of the McClatchy Newspapers reported April 24th, Ethiopia has changed its mind and decided for the time being not to free the American Muslim who was captured trying to flee war-torn Somalia and was held without charge in Kenya and Ethiopia for more than four months. Can you talk about this secret prison?

SALIM LONE: Well, you know, there are -- did you say “secret prison”?

AMY GOODMAN: Yes.

SALIM LONE: Yes, yes, yes. You know, I mean, this whole enterprise -- the kidnappings on Kenyan streets, the grabbing refugees coming across the border -- has a “Made in America” stamp on it, because you’ve seen it all happen before. And these secret prisons, the US denies any responsibility in this whole operation. And yet, we know that CIA and FBI officials are in those prisons interviewing the inmates.

We also know, by the way, that many of the people who have disappeared are not in those secret prisons. Where are those people? Have they be killed? Are they being tortured somewhere else? This is, you know, utter lawlessness.

And we must try to get the Europeans, in particular -- I keep appealing to the Europeans, because I know -- I speak to many European ambassadors in Kenya -- I know that they're privately very concerned about what is going on. And we must get them to do more. It is fine to indicate there are war crimes to be committed. It's fine to say this must stop, and hospitals shouldn’t be bombed, and you can’t keep relief away from suffering people. But they must go beyond that. They must take an initiative, or talk privately to the United States and say, “Look, this is a lost cause. We are only creating suffering, and we're creating problems for ourselves, because there will be blowback on this. There will be animosities and angers, which will affect Europe, America, Africa, everywhere.” So they must [inaudible].

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary-General’s call for a coalition of the willing to go into Somalia? You’re a former UN official.

SALIM LONE: You know, it is so disgraceful. For him to try to get the Security Council -- that's what he proposes, the Security Council, in case there is no peace in Somalia in the meeting in June, in mid-June, to discuss it in the Security Council -- for him to propose that the UN should now go in to do what the US and Ethiopia have been unable to do, which is basically to impose a client regime on Somalia, it's just absolutely disgraceful. I mean, I read that report to the Security Council, and it is hard to believe that Mr. Ban Ki-moon is the Secretary-General of the United Nations. It is so blatantly and comprehensively one-sided. There is not a word about the fact that the Ethiopians are there without any international legitimacy. They're occupiers. They violated the UN Charter. They were not in any danger of being attacked, and they invaded. So this notion must also -- this notion that a coalition of the willing must be formed -- as you know, that was how the first Gulf War was fought. And if this coalition comes into place, which I hope will not, it will merely internationalize the crisis and make things even worse. But I hope the Europeans, in particular, and the Africans who are on the Security Council will not allow that to happen.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you very much for joining us, Salim Lone, columnist for the Daily Nation in Kenya, former spokesperson for the UN mission in Iraq when it was bombed there, attacked there, several years ago, now living in Kenya, speaking to us, though, from London.

Noam Chomsky Accuses Alan Dershowitz of Launching a "Jihad" to Block Norman Finkelstein From Getting Tenure at Depaul University

Tuesday, April 17th, 2007

Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream

---

We play Part II of our conversation with two of the country's leading dissidents, Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn on U.S. wars from Iraq to Vietnam, resistance and academia. We also ask Chomsky about Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz who is lobbying DePaul faculty members to oppose Norman Finkelstein's bid to receive tenure. Chomsky says, "[Dershowitz] launched a jihad against Norman Finkelstein simply to try and vilify and defame in the hope that maybe what he is writing will disappear."

---

We turn to Part II of our conversation with two of the country's leading dissidents, Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky. We spoke with them yesterday in a rare joint interview.

Howard Zinn is one of America's most widely-read historians. His classic work "A People's History of the United States" has sold over 1.5 million copies and it has altered how many teach the nation's history. His latest book is "A Power Governments Cannot Suppress."

Noam Chomsky began teaching linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge over 50 years ago. He is the author of dozens of books on linguistics and U.S. foreign policy. His most recent book is titled "Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy."

In a wide-ranging interview, we spoke about US wars from Iraq to Vietnam, about resistance and about academia. I asked Chomsky about political science professor Norman Finkelstein - one of the country's foremost critics of Israeli policy - and his battle to receive tenure at Depaul University where has taught for six years. Finkelstein's tenure has been approved at the departmental and college level but the dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences has opposed it. A final decision is expected to be made by May. Finkelstein has accused Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz of being responsible for leading the effort to deny him tenure. In an interview with the Harvard Crimson, Dershowitz admitted that he had sent a letter to DePaul faculty members lobbying against Finkelstein's tenure. I asked Noam Chomsky about the dispute.

• Noam Chomsky. Professor Emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is the author of dozens of books on linguistics and U.S. foreign policy. His latest book is "Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy."

• Howard Zinn. Professor emeritus at Boston University. His classic work "A People's History of the United States" has sold over 1.5 million copies. His latest book is "A Power Governments Cannot Suppress."

Hail and Farewell: the End of the American Empire: Gore Vidal

Zuade Kaufman / Truthdig

Posted on Apr 16, 2007

By Gore Vidal

Whenever The New York Times finally gets the point to what is going on in our native land a celestial choir can be heard in Times Square, shouting hosannas. This happened recently, on April 14th, when they realized that there could be a dark explanation for what W. is doing when he sends a Mr. Bolton, a U.N. hater, to be ambassador to that body or a Mr. Wolfowitz to the World Bank, a man as ignorant of history and finance as the president himself. Maureen Dowd in the Times was allowed to set the pitch for the latest revelations with her “More Con Than Neo” headline. Meanwhile, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of incompetents are now cluttering the Justice Department while known incompetents are in place to wreck from within regulatory systems and even mighty Walter Reed Hospital itself.

Click here to listen to Gore Vidal read this essay.

And then such investigations that W. has cut back—particularly at the height of the pet food investigation, a matter of such passionate interest to our countrymen.

Needless to say, the Times, instinctively pro-Bush, as it too is an inept creature of our leviathan master: corporate America. But though the Times now notes a mysterious problem with Bush’s general relations to the outside world, the Times, as usual, cannot grasp what so many of us fans of the American Republic can see so clearly: In the name of Manichaean religious cults he is eager to destroy every last trace of the New Deal (privatize Social Security) by destroying both the state and its global imperium.

W.’s love of torture and the death penalty suggests this that is Caligula Redux, but actually he is a home-grown Romulus Augustulus, the last Roman emperor as viewed by the Swiss playwright Friedrich Dürrenmatt and refashioned by me in an English version that played on Broadway in the 1960s. As the play opens, the northern barbarians are closing in on Rome, while the emperor dawdles, neglecting to appoint a “war tsar” to defend the city itself. What is wrong with him? Well, he does have a plan. When Odoaker, the king of the Teutons, arrives, Romulus expects to be executed, but Odoaker also has a plan: The two rulers will unite in a realm of peace. Romulus then admits that all his actions and non-actions had a single end: the destruction of the bloody empire he had inherited.

For the admiring Teutons he holds up an imaginary globe. “Now watch,” he says, as the emperor dissolves his empire. “Look, all of you, once more upon this tinted globe, this dream of a great empire, floating in space, driven by the slightest breath of my lips, yes, look once more upon the far-flung lands encircling the blue sea with its dancing dolphins, these rich provinces golden with wheat, these teeming cities overflowing with life, yes, the empire was once a sun, warming mankind, but at its zenith it scorched the world. Now it is a harmless bubble, and in the hands of the emperor it dissolves into nothing. And, thus, the throne of blood is overturned!”

Obviously, our weird little emperor is incapable of moral reflection, thus inviting us to reflect morally upon him as he has gone about his systematic wrecking of our common empire, which, after 1945, should have come into its own but thanks to Truman et al. it stayed forever at war and now but, Hark! what is the Times chorus singing now? Can it be a new weekend edition? Without troubling news? Or has W. finally snapped our military machine for fun if not global peace. On a high moral ground Romulus the Great disowned his empire. W. the Minuscule, driven by ignorance and greed like his cronies, leaves us defenseless and at sea in a terrorized world of prisons, phony trials, renditions, executions without due process of law, while leaving in the Middle East a vast charnel house which he likes to call “a fledgling democracy.”

At the end of the Broadway play, one Roman soldier (played by Robert Duvall) eager to save Rome joins Romulus but Romulus tells him “the Roman empire has been dissolved,” as surely as W. is dissolving us as hurricanes, tempests, droughts of his making ravage our alabaster cities and amber waves of grain. Ave Atque Vale.

US Attorneys firing originated with Rove

The writer/commentator says he has sources with access to the White House who blew the Bush administration's cover story on the firing of the US Attorneys. The plan originated with Karl Rove, and his idea was to fire all the US Attorneys in order to conceal the fact that the mass firing was meant specifically to get rid of just a few of them.
---

Legal Affairs

Documents Show Justice Ranking U.S. Attorneys

All Things Considered, April 13, 2007 · The Justice Department sent Congress a new batch of documents about the dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys. The documents show Justice Department and White House staffers planning the firings and trying to control the subsequent fallout.

Some of the newly released documents are repeats, like the letter in which Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, responds to a suggestion from White House counsel Harriet Miers that all 93 U.S. attorneys be fired.

NPR now has new information about that plan. According to someone who's had conversations with White House officials, the plan to fire all 93 U.S. attorneys originated with political adviser Karl Rove. It was seen as a way to get political cover for firing the small number of U.S. attorneys the White House actually wanted to get rid of. Documents show the plan was eventually dismissed as impractical.

The Justice Department documents released today include a spreadsheet ranking all 93 prosecutors. The chart ranks them on whether they have Hill experience, campaign experience, and — in the last column — whether they're members of the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group.

By eventually dismissing the eight prosecutors, the White House started down a path that has led to a clash with Congress over executive privilege. The current question is whether, and how, White House officials will testify about their role in the dismissals.

In a letter Thursday, White House Counsel Fred Fielding told Congress he won't budge from his original offer — to let Congress interview White House staffers privately, with no oath or transcript.

Sources tell NPR that Fielding actually wants to negotiate with Congress about how the interviews will take place. But Fielding has not been able to persuade President Bush to go along.

Congress still wants to know more about the months leading up to the firings and who was involved in the decision-making. A House committee has subpoenaed some of that information. Other details are likely to come out when Gonzales testifies before Congress about the firings Tuesday.

by Ari Shapiro

HERE

Related NPR Stories

• April 12, 2007
  Senate Panel Seeks Full Versions of Documents
• April 6, 2007
  Gonzales Adviser Goodling Gives Up Her Post
• March 30, 2007
  Gonzales Remains, Despite Resignation Rumors
• March 29, 2007
  Former Gonzales Deputy Contradicts Boss's Story
• March 27, 2007
  Will Alberto Gonzales Withstand the Political Siege?
• March 20, 2007
  E-Mails Show Justice Dept. in Damage-Control Mode

The Challenger Disaster and Vote Fraud: LISTEN LIVE

THE 'WHAT REALLY HAPPENED' SHOW
on GCN Every Saturday, 11AM Central Time! LISTEN LIVE AT www.gcnlive.com/listenlive.htm April 14th show: The Challenger Disaster, with guest Richard Cook. Second Hour: Vote Fraud, with guest Bev Harris.
CALL IN PHONE NUMBER IS 1-800-259-9231. For callers outside the US & Canada 651-289-4333, punch in ext 125 at the prompt.

Program directors email affiliaterelations@gcnlive.com
Ad inquiries ads@whatreallyhappened.com

Two Explosive Books Tell the Inside Story of the Forged Iraq-Niger Docs That Helped Build the Case for War

Editor's note: I am moving to post at the secondary blog(also see new articles below).
---
Tuesday, April 10th, 2007
EXCLUSIVE

Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream Read Transcript

---

In his January 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush declared the infamous sixteen words: “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” The claim was central to the administration’s claims that Saddam Hussein was seeking weapons of mass destruction and served as a basis for launching the Iraq invasion less than two months later. Bush’s declaration was based on an intelligence document that provided evidence about Iraq’s purchase of uranium from the African country of Niger. But there was one problem: the document was a fake. In a Democracy Now! broadcast exclusive, we speak with the authors of two explosive new books. Carlo Bonini is the Italian reporter who broke the Niger story. His new book is called “Collusion: International Espionage and the War on Terror.” Peter Eisner is a veteran foreign correspondent and is currently an editor at the Washington Post. His new book is “The Italian Letter: How the Bush Administration Used a Fake Letter to Build the Case for War in Iraq.” [includes rush transcript - partial]

---

It was one of the key justifications for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

President Bush: “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

President Bush made the statement in his January 2003 State of the Union. Those sixteen words were central to the administration’s claims that Saddam Hussein was seeking weapons of mass destruction and served as a basis for launching the Iraq invasion less than two months later. Bush’s declaration was based on an intelligence document that provided evidence about Iraq’s purchase of uranium from the African country of Niger. But there was one problem: the document was a fake.

Bush’s smoking gun evidence would quickly unravel and ignite a political firestorm that reached the highest levels of the US government. The story behind the forged document stretches from Italy to Niger to Iraq and deep into the corridors of the US intelligence community and the White House itself. The document played a key role in the chain of events that led to the conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney’s former Chief of Staff, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, in the CIA leak case.

And its effect continues to reverberate today. Congressmember Henry Waxman, the chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, recently formally requested Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to testify before a committee hearing next week regarding the false Iraq-Niger claims.

Today, a Democracy Now! broadcast exclusive: two explosive new books. Carlo Bonini is the Italian reporter who broke the story. His new book is called “Collusion: International Espionage and the War on Terror.” He is an investigative journalist with La Repubblica newspaper of Rome, and he joins us in our firehouse studio. Peter Eisner is a veteran foreign correspondent and is currently an editor at the Washington Post. His new book is “The Italian Letter: How the Bush Administration Used a Fake Letter to Build the Case for War in Iraq.” He joins us from Washington, D.C.

• Peter Eisner. Veteran foreign correspondent. He is currently an editor at the Washington Post. He is co-author of “The Italian Letter: How the Bush Administration Used a Fake Letter to Build the Case for War in Iraq.”

• Carlo Bonini. Investigative journalist with La Repubblica newspaper of Rome. He is co-author of “Collusion: International Espionage and the War on Terror.”

---

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

AMY GOODMAN: It was one of the key justifications for the US invasion of Iraq.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

AMY GOODMAN: President Bush made the statement in his January 2003 State of the Union address. Those sixteen words were central to the administration’s claims that Saddam Hussein was seeking weapons of mass destruction and served as the basis for launching the Iraq invasion less than two months later. Bush’s declaration was based on an intelligence document that provided evidence about Iraq's purchase of uranium from the African country of Niger.

But there was one problem: the document was fake.

Bush’s smoking gun evidence would quickly unravel and ignite a political firestorm that reached the highest levels of the US government. The story behind the forged document stretches from Italy to Niger to Iraq and deep into the corridors of the US intelligence community and the White House itself. The document played a key role in the chain of events that led to the conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney’s former Chief of Staff, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, in the CIA leak case.

And its effect continues to reverberate today. Congressmember Henry Waxman, the chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, recently formally requested Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to testify before a committee hearing next week regarding the false Iraq-Niger claims.

Today, in a Democracy Now! broadcast exclusive, two explosive new books. Carlo Bonini is the Italian reporter who broke the story. His new book is called Collusion: International Espionage and the War on Terror. He is an investigative journalist with La Repubblica newspaper of Rome. He joins us in our firehouse studio. Peter Eisner is a veteran foreign correspondent. He’s currently an editor at the Washington Post. His new book is called The Italian Letter: How the Bush Administration Used a Fake Letter to Build the Case for War in Iraq. He joins us from Washington, D.C. We welcome you both to Democracy Now!

I want to begin with Carlo Bonini. When did you first learn about this story?

CARLO BONINI: It was summer 2003, where there had been at the time few -- I mean, few reports from US that probably the smoking gun regarding the weapons of mass destruction was some way fabricated in Italy. And all of the sudden in the summer of 2003, we got these documents, these fake documents, and we found --

AMY GOODMAN: How did you get these fake documents?

CARLO BONINI: Well, a search gave us these documents. We had the chance to see how the documents were badly faked. And the most surprisingly thing was that we had the chance to identify the person who had a main role in faking the documents. And the name of this guy was Rocko Martino, a former Italian SISMI agent.

AMY GOODMAN: SISMI?

CARLO BONINI: SISMI is the Italian CIA. It’s the secret service, the counterintelligence service. And Rocco Martino made his way, and his documents made their way to the White House and to the sixteen words.

AMY GOODMAN: How? First, did you know him before?

CARLO BONINI: No. No. This guy came out of the blue. I mean, at least we never -- I mean, we didn't know the existence of him. But it was quite clear after a while that Rocco Martino didn't act by himself. I mean, the Italian job was not only by him. Rocco Martino could count on the complicity of the Italian SISMI. It was thanks to the Italian SISMI that at the beginning the content of the fake documents could be shared with the CIA, and it was because of Rocco Martino’s old friendship with an Italian reporter that the documents in the fall 2002 could be shipped to US through the US embassy in Rome.

AMY GOODMAN: Peter Eisner, can you take it from there? And also place this in the context of when this happened in relation to President Bush uttering those sixteen words.

PETER EISNER: Well, in fact, Amy, the CIA and other members of the intelligence community had heard from SISMI in the first few days after 9/11, which was saying that there was information that they didn't specify about possible uranium purchases or attempts to buy uranium in Niger, and the CIA solicited more information from SISMI. And by early 2002, they actually had a version of one document saying that this had taken place.

Many parts of the CIA, from the outset, as early as September and October of 2001, simply did not believe that Iraq, for various reasons, was attempting to buy uranium or, in fact, trying to restart its nuclear program -- didn't need to buy uranium in Niger, because it already had uranium. Second of all, SISMI was not providing the source. It was not saying how it was getting the information. And third of all, they tended to doubt SISMI, in any case, because it's got a reliability problem among Western intelligence agencies. So, well before, more than a year before President Bush's State of the Union message, it was gravely doubted by key members of the intelligence community that it could have been that Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium.

AMY GOODMAN: Would you agree, Carlo Bonini, with this assessment of SISMI having a problem with credibility in Western intelligence?

CARLO BONINI: I do agree. I do agree, and I think that the Nigergate story, as well as other stories, can prove it. Also, what Peter was saying, the problem with SISMI was that also -- I mean, along this complicated story called Nigergate, SISMI played a very untrusty role. We heard before that Bush relied on British intelligence. The problem is that it was the same hand feeding different mouths. I mean, Rocco Martino was feeding the British, was feeding the Americans, was feeding the French. That is the problem. I mean, the SISMI didn't ring the bell when it was the time to ring the bell. SISMI simply let the story go ’til January 2003, when it was too late.

AMY GOODMAN: Peter Eisner, talk more about who Rocco Martino was.

PETER EISNER: Rocco Martino was a failed former policeman, Italian policeman, a sometimes agent -- and that is, outside the house of SISMI -- who sometimes was able to provide nuggets of information to journalists and certainly was also working as a freelance for other intelligence agencies, even the French, or working for or providing them information for a stipend.

Rocco Martino approached a journalist named Elisabetta Burba at the Milan news magazine Panorama on October 7, 2002, and said he had some great material, a hot tip about Iraq and uranium, if she was interested. And that was how he first surfaced in this story. Elisabetta Burba and others at her magazine had heard of Martino before. They had gotten information from him before. They had paid him before. And she took a look at his documents, had immediate doubts, brought it into her editors, and started investigating.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to break. When we come back, her response when President Bush gave that State of the Union address in 2003 and talked about Saddam Hussein trying to get uranium from Niger. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org. We'll be back with these two reporters who have both documented these stories in two explosive books: Peter Eisner’s The Italian Letter, Carlo Bonini’s The Collusion. Stay with us.

[break]

David MacMichael on Iran and the Israel Lobby

InfoRADIO
April 4, 2007

By Jeffrey Blankfort

Discussion about Iran, AIPAC/JINSA, political manipulation in the US

Audio

Other audio formats

InfoRADIO broadcasts on 93.1 FM in Berlin, Germany.

Jeff Blankfort is a radio program producer with KPOO in San Francisco, KZYX in Mendocino and KPFT/Pacifica in Houston.

He is a journalist and Jewish-American and has been a pro-Palestinian human rights activist since 1970. He was formerly the editor of the Middle East Labor Bulletin and co-founder of the Labor Committee of the Middle East. He was also a founding member of the Nov. 29 Coalition on Palestine. He won a sizable lawsuit against the Jewish Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in February 2002 for its vast illegal spying against him, as well as other peaceful political groups and individuals (including anti-Apartheid groups/activists).

The attack on the USS Liberty: LISTEN LIVE

THE 'WHAT REALLY HAPPENED' SHOW
on GCN Every Saturday, 11AM Central Time! LISTEN LIVE AT www.gcnlive.com/listenlive.htm April 7th show: (Two hours) The attack on the USS Liberty - Part 2. Special on-air guests will be Jim Ennes , John Hrankowski and Joe Meadors.
April 14th show: The Challenger Disaster, with guest Richard Cook. Second Hour: Vote Fraud, with guest Bev Harris.
CALL IN PHONE NUMBER IS 1-800-259-9231. For callers outside the US & Canada 651-289-4333, punch in ext 125 at the prompt.

Program directors email affiliaterelations@gcnlive.com
Ad inquiries ads@whatreallyhappened.com

The attack on the USS Liberty

THE 'WHAT REALLY HAPPENED' SHOW
on GCN Every Saturday, 11AM Central Time! LISTEN LIVE AT www.gcnlive.com/listenlive.htm April 7th show: (Two hours) The attack on the USS Liberty - Part 2. Special on-air guests will be Jim Ennes , John Hrankowski and Joe Meadors.
April 14th show: The Challenger Disaster, with guest Richard Cook. Second Hour: Vote Fraud, with guest Bev Harris.
CALL IN PHONE NUMBER IS 1-800-259-9231. For callers outside the US & Canada 651-289-4333, punch in ext 125 at the prompt.

Program directors email affiliaterelations@gcnlive.com
Ad inquiries ads@whatreallyhappened.com

TWA 800: LISTEN LIVE

THE 'WHAT REALLY HAPPENED' SHOW
on GCN Every Saturday, 11AM Central Time! LISTEN LIVE AT www.gcnlive.com/listenlive.htm March 31st show: TWA 800. Special on-air guest will be Tom Stalcup
April 7th show: (Two hours) The attack on the USS Liberty - Part 2. Special on-air guests will be Jim Ennes , John Hrankowski and Joe Meadors.
April 14th show: The Challenger Disaster, with guest Richard Cook. Second Hour: Vote Fraud, with guest Bev Harris.
CALL IN PHONE NUMBER IS 1-800-259-5791. For callers outside the US & Canada 651-289-4333, punch in ext 125 at the prompt.

Program directors email affiliaterelations@gcnlive.com
Ad inquiries ads@whatreallyhappened.com

"This Isn't American Idol, We're Choosing the President of the United States" - Kucinich on Corporate Media Campaign Coverage

Wednesday, March 28th, 2007

Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream

---

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D - OH) was one of eight Congressmembers to vote against the House war-spending bill last week that set a timetable for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. We go to Capitol Hill to speak with Kucinich about the bill, why he thinks impeachment "should be on the table," the corporate media's coverage of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination and more. [rush transcript included]

---

On Capitol Hill the Democratic-led Senate has moved closer to passing a war-spending bill that will give President Bush $100 billion more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and also require U.S. combat troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq.

On Tuesday Republican lawmakers attempted to pass an amendment removing the troop withdrawal plan from the bill. But the amendment was defeated by a 50 to 48 vote after Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska voted with the Democrats on the measure.

President Bush has vowed to veto the legislation if it includes a timetable for withdrawal. Meanwhile, anti-war activists continue to pressure lawmakers to reject the bill as well because it allows for the war to continue for another year.

In Burlington Vermont, police arrested eight protesters yesterday after they refused to leave the offices of independent Sen. Bernie Sanders. Sanders has been a long-time opponent of the war but supports the spending bill.

Sanders said it would be counterproductive to vote against the spending bill. He said, "That would mean voting with the Bush Administration and congressional Republicans and handing a victory to those who want to continue and perhaps expand the war into neighboring countries."

Last week eight anti-war Democrats voted against the supplemental spending bill when it came before the House. One of those lawmakers, Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, joins us from Capitol Hill. Congressman Kucinich is also running for the Democratic presidential nomination.

• Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D - OH)

---

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

AMY GOODMAN: Last week, eight anti-war Democrats voted against the supplemental spending bill when it came before the house. One of those lawmakers, Congress member Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, joins us from Capitol Hill. Congress member Kucinich is also running for the Democratic Presidential nomination. We welcome you to Democracy Now!, Congressman Kucinich.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Good morning Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: Good to have you with us. First of all, as you stand overlooking the capitol, talk about your vote against the war funding bill.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, we were given false choices. We were told that we either buy into president Bush's plan, which is keep the war going indefinitely, or accept the Democratic version of the war in Iraq, which would keep the war going for another year or two. I say those choices weren't sufficient.

The Democrats could have refused to send a bill forward. We didn't have to fund this war. We're not under any obligation to keep the war going. And yet our leaders took another path. Furthermore, Amy, you may be interested to know that the 2008 budget, which is before Congress today and will be voted on tomorrow, contains another $145 billion for the war, and on top of that, they're putting another $50 billion for the war in fiscal year 2009.

So this talk about ending the war by March or by September belies the fact that the budget has money in it to keep the war going into 2009. And I think that's wrong. I think the American people will reject that type of thinking, and I’m standing strong to say get out now. I put forth a plan embodied in HR 1234. To accomplish just that.

AMY GOODMAN: But what do you say to those make the argument that if president Bush has on his desk a bill that gives money, gives a fortune in continuing the war, and he has to veto it because he doesn't like the timetable, that this puts him in a very difficult position?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Our decisions have to be way above politics. We have the lives of our troops at stake here. There's no military victory in Iraq. We're there illegally. The occupation is fueling the insurgency. Democrats can still, after president Bush vetoes the bill, which he will, Democrats can still take the right position, which is refuse to fund the war, use money in the pipeline to bring the troops home.

AMY GOODMAN: What about the pressure from the leadership, the Democratic Party, from the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, all of the stories going around of Congress members voting for the funding so that they could help out the spinach farmers, etc.?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: On matters of war and peace, I think people have to vote their conscience. I can say I wasn't pressured.

AMY GOODMAN: But what about those that were, and what about the spending bill going way beyond funding wars?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: It's a legitimate concern. I mean, if you're for peace, you vote for peace. If you're for peace, you don't vote for war because somebody's giving you a plum in a bill that's designed to keep a war going. I think the American people want new leadership which understands that if you're for peace, you vote for peace, you don't fund wars.

And so I’m moving forward with a plan, it's embodied in HR 1234 that would stop the funding and the occupation, close the bases, bring the troops home, and set in motion a parallel process that would stabilize Iraq with the help of the international community, which will only help, by the way, unless, you know, if the United States takes a new course and ends the occupation.

So my plan envisions that America will take a new direction. What's happening right now, Amy, is we're looking in this budget, and people, and Democrats that look at this budget today are going to be surprised to find out that our leaders are proposing keeping the war going into 2009.

AMY GOODMAN: Let me play a clip of you, of House Speaker -- for you, of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pushing for the passage of the supplemental spending bill. This was her comment after the bill passed.

HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI: Proudly this new Congress voted to bring an end to the war in Iraq. It took one great, giant step in that direction. We voted “NO” to giving a blank check to an open-ended commitment, a war without end, to the President of the United States, and “Yes” to begin the end of the war and the redeployment of our troops.

AMY GOODMAN: I then want to play for you a clip of President Bush. President Bush's comment after the House passed the spending bill last week.

PRESIDENT BUSH: This bill has too much pork, too many conditions, and an artificial timetable for withdrawal. As I made clear for weeks, I will veto if it comes to my desk. And because the vote in the House was so close, it is clear that my veto would be sustained. Today's action in the House does only one thing, it delays the delivery of vital resources for our troops.

AMY GOODMAN: Congress member Dennis Kucinich, your response.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, the Democrats' position should have been and can still be, that we refuse to fund the war, that we don't give this president a dime to keep the war going, that we use money in the pipeline to bring the troops home and set in motion a parallel process that would secure Iraq. We're under no obligation to keep this war going.

But I would say, Amy, that if you look at the budget, which is facing Congress tomorrow, it provides not only $145 billion for fiscal year ‘08 for the war, for all of it, but another $50 billion for fiscal year 2009. I wonder how that squares with Democratic leaders' position that they want to bring the troops home in March or in September of next year. There's something that's contradictory here.

So I’m going to try to see if I can reconcile that today in Congress by talking to leadership and alerting my fellow members that money is in the budget to keep this war going past President Bush's term. President Bush has been very clear. He's going to keep this war going through the end of his term. I say that American should get out now, that it's not a choice between President Bush or keeping the war going another year, year and a half. We need to get out now, and we need to let the troops know we truly support them, by bringing them home.

AMY GOODMAN: Congressman Kucinich, what would getting out now look like? I mean, do you mean, for example, today, you begin the process, and when would the soldiers be home if -- well, if you were president, Dennis Kucinich?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: I crafted my plan with the help of the people at the UN, and I will tell you that they say that it would take about two months, three months to mobilize a sufficient force that would replace US Troops leaving. So I say two to three months we could have troops home and have an international force that would help stabilize Iraq. But the international community will not become involved as long as the United States intends to occupy Iraq and keep bases open. So we need to take a new direction.

My plan would be as follows: to put in place the provisions of HR 1234, which ends the occupation, closes the bases, sets in motion a plan to bring the troops home, bring in international peacekeepers, and stop the privatization of Iraq oil. One of the things in the bill that passed the House was a demand that the Iraq government pass a hydrocarbon act which sets the stage for broad privatization of trillions of dollars of Iraqi oil interests.

Now, think about it. If Democrats had told the American people last October that if you vote democrat in November, we'll not only give you enough money to keep the war going through the end of President Bush's term, but we'll also privatize the oil of Iraq and then help the US oil companies win the prize that I think the war was all about from the very beginning. I don't think the people would have voted Democrat. So Democrats have to keep faith with the American people.

My plan would do that, by returning full control of the Iraqi oil assets to the Iraqi people. Put in motion a plan for reconciliation between Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds, which cannot happen as long as the United States occupies. Provide for honest reconstruction, you know, none of these contractors from the US can be there. They've stolen money from the Iraqi people and also from the US taxpayers.

We have to give the Iraqi people jobs with Iraqi contractors doing the work. We have to provide for reparations so that we can pay money to the Iraqi people who have lost their homes or lost the lives of loved ones. We have to stabilize energy and food prices. And when Iraq goes to the international community, make sure that Iraq doesn't suffer from the structural readjustment provisions of the IMF or the World Bank.

AMY GOODMAN: Your response, Congress member Kucinich to Halliburton saying they're moving to Dubai?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, I think the honest thing would be to have a good Attorney General call Halliburton in and start the questioning of them about their conduct, and I think that they should not be immune from prosecution simply because they're moving to Dubai.

AMY GOODMAN: We continue with Dennis Kucinich from Ohio, Democratic Presidential hopeful. He is standing right outside the Capitol right now. You mentioned Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. What do you think should happen to him?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: It's very clear that the Justice Department has become so politicized that it cannot function in the interests of the American people. The honorable thing would be for Mr. Gonzales to resign.

AMY GOODMAN: And if he doesn't resign, should he be fired? Should the President fire him?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, I don't think that's going to happen. I think he's doing what the President has asked him to do. The question here is what's his sense of honor about his responsibility to the law and to the American people. That's going to be his decision.

AMY GOODMAN: Speaking of the President, what do you think should happen to President Bush? Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker, said that impeachment is off the table. What are your thoughts?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: I don't think that it's wise for the House and the Congress, for co-equal branches of government, to essentially give the President carte blanche in his decision making by saying no matter what you do, impeachment is off the table. I think that impeachment has to be on the table, and I also think that it's time to have a national conversation in cities, in towns all over America about the appropriate conduct for a President and a Vice President, about whether it's right for a President and Vice President to lie to the American people and take us into war. About the erosion of civil rights in America and how that's come about as a result of this administration's conduct of the war.

I think that it's time to have that kind of a discussion, and I’ve urged that from my website at kucinich.us, and I’m asking to hear from people about what they think, and I think that we need to make sure that this President understands that he can't do whatever he wants, that he is bound by the constitution, that he is bound by national and international law.

AMY GOODMAN: Congressman Kucinich, you've mentioned the word treason. What do you mean?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: I don't think I mentioned the word treason.

AMY GOODMAN: Have you talked about President Bush and treason?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: No, I’ve never -- I never mentioned the word treason. I do think that accountability is a key word here. And I think the President and the Vice President must be held accountable. That's why I think it's a mistake for anyone to say impeachment is off the table. At the same time, we have to take a responsibility as members of Congress to uphold the constitution of the United States. That's our obligation as a co-equal branch of government.

So I’m waiting to hear from the American people. I would ask people who are listening or watching to go to my website at: www.kucinich.us. I'd like to hear from you. What do you think? Should the House move forward with a resolution of impeachment and what do you think the dimensions of it should be? I want to hear from the American people on this.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you think of the Center for Constitutional Rights going to Germany to file a complaint against former Congress member -- or rather, former Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld? It's not only against him, it's against Alberto Gonzales, it's against General Sanchez and Miller for torture, over the issue of torture.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: I think that all members of this administration, including the President, the Vice President, and all the other officials you mentioned, should be held accountable under international law, and that that accountability does not expire with the expiration of the term of this President. America at some point is going to have to restore its moral equilibrium, which has been lost, because this administration took us into a war based on lies. They all have to be held accountable. They must be held accountable, not only under national, but international law.

AMY GOODMAN: When you came to the National Conference for Media Reform in Memphis, you talked about holding hearings around the FCC, heading up a committee that is responsible for the FCC, I think it's the Domestic Policy Subcommittee the House Oversight on Government Reform Committee. What do you plan to do?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, our committee just started its work last week. The Domestic Policy Subcommittee has jurisdiction over the Federal Communications Commission. It's been 20 years since we’ve had and hearings at all on the Fairness Doctrine. It’s been a long time since Congress has held hearings on the concentration in the electronic media.

And so I want to proceed with hearings sometime in the next few months that would review the -- those animating principles of the FCC embodied in the Federal Communications Act of 1934, and that is that the electronic media shall serve in the public interest, convenience, and necessity. I want to hold that up and see if today's conditions corresponds to what it was that gave the public the inclination to cause electronic media to be licensed and if the licensees have kept faith with the American people.

AMY GOODMAN: Congress member Kucinich, you also just returned from New York, where you held a news conference on universal healthcare. How does your plan differ from, for example, Hillary Rodham Clinton, the New York Senator, also Democratic hopeful – Presidential hopeful, also said she supports universal healthcare.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, it differs in every way. Everyone in this campaign is for universal healthcare. But what Senator Clinton, Senator Edwards, and others are talking about is having the insurance companies still in charge of healthcare, of having the government subsidize the insurance companies or forcing people to buy insurance or have the government subsidize the purchase of insurance.

Look, the President of the United States shouldn't be an insurance salesman. The President should stand for a position where everyone is covered, that's what my bill does. The Conyers-Kucinich Bill, HR 676, Medicare for all, it ends for-profit medicine, it is a single-payer system which recognizes we're spending $2.2 trillion a year on healthcare, but 31% of that, or $660 billion, goes for the activities of the for-profit system.

Take that money, put it into healthcare, and you have enough money to cover every medical need, including dental care, vision care, mental health, prescription drug, and long-term care. Healthcare is a right, it's not a privilege. Senator Clinton's plan helps the insurance companies, it keeps the for-profit system going, and my plan ends the for-profit system and uses the savings to provide healthcare for everyone.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you think of the media coverage of the Democratic Presidential race right now? A lot of attention on both Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Senator Obama and Clinton. Of course, last time you also ran for president, and there was a major issue the day after you took Ted Koppel to task at ABC for asking questions about polls and money as opposed to issues on your positions. The next day, the so-called embedded reporter in your campaign was pulled, the ABC reporter. What about the coverage now?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: My concern wasn't so much whether reporters were embedded in my campaign, as much as it was the fact that mainstream media reports were embedded with the war. But as far as my own campaign, look, I’m bringing issues forth to the American people. We're organizing in places like New Hampshire, where the Democratic Party just came out in favor of single-payer healthcare, not for profit. My campaign is about organizing door-to-door and grass roots fundraising, and people who want to get involved can go to kucinich.us and help us.

I'm not going to be on my knees begging for attention from the mainstream media. They have to realize that they have a responsibility as broadcast licensees to provide coverage to all the candidates. After all, this isn't "American idol", we're choosing a President of the United States. The American people have a right to a substantive discussion about those issues that affect their lives, such as war and peace, such as poverty and prosperity, healthcare for all, or keep the insurance companies in business in healthcare.

We need a new discussion, and I appreciate the chance to be on Democracy Now!, because I know your audience is an audience of people with principle, of activism, and I’m confident that when they hear what I stand for, they'll be interested in joining this campaign.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, President Kucin -- finally, Congress member Kucinich, the men and women who have gone AWOL, there have been thousands of them, some are being court-martialed, like Lieutenant Aaron Witada will be court-martialed again. It was a mistrial in his first trial, first Officer to say no to war, to deployment to Iraq. What do you think should happen to these men? Augustine Aguayo, an Army medic who applied for CO status, didn't get it, and is now in prison in Germany. Do you support their saying “no”? Do you support their refusing to go to Iraq or redeploy to Iraq?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: I support the troops who serve and also those who don't feel it's right to serve. I think we have to ask our troops to be able to reserve the right of their conscience, and if they feel it's the right thing to go forward, then we support that. If they feel it's not the right thing, we should support that, too. I think we're in a point in the history of this country where many people have looked at the war and realized that it's wrong. Some of those people are soldiers. Soldiers are put in an impossible situation, not only those who are committed to serving in Iraq, but also those who know that the war is wrong and who question the war. I think we have to love our troops, whatever situation they find themselves in. And the way to support them is to bring them home.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think they should be court-martialed?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: You know, I don't think that anyone who's taken a principles and conscientious position should be subject to a court-martial. They should be permitted to leave the service if they so desire, but not be forced through that kind of a process. I think, you know, there has to be an underlying truth here, and the underlying truth is the war was wrong, period. The war is based on lies. We should support our troops by bringing them home, and we should support those who have challenged the war by giving them a chance to leave honorably.

AMY GOODMAN: Congress member Kucinich, I want to thank you for joining us from the Capitol. Ohio Congress member and Democratic Presidential hopeful.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Thank you Amy.

Interview: Mayor Rocky Anderson on Bush Impeachment

Mar 26, 2007

You may be interested in an hour-long interview I did for "On Point" with Tom Ashbrook this morning. In the interview, I lay out key elements of the case I've been making for the impeachment of President Bush. Tom also interviewed Dick Wadhams, Chair of the Colorado Republican Party, who ran George Allen's unsuccessful 2006 Senate campaign.

Best regards,

Rocky Anderson

Why the Facts of 9/11 Must Be Suppressed

Guns and Butter
Wednesday, March 21st, 2007
About this program:

"Why the Facts of 9/11 Must Be Suppressed: Understanding the Ruling Group Mind Behind the War Without End"

With Dr. John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Guelph, Ontario in a presentation at the International Citizens Inquiry Into 9/11 on May 30, 2004 in Toronto. McMurtry was one of the first academics to analyze 9/11 and the 9/11 wars. In response to the extreme pressure of forcing reality to conform to manufactured delusions, the group and its members become increasingly submerged within a pre-conscious field of hysteria, denials and projections. Their program is being played out in Iraq against heroic resistance, while elsewhere in the empire the "regulating group mind" demands complicity with its fundamental assumption - that 9/11 was an attack from the outside.

Play mp3 Stream

"The Surge of Baghdad Should Become the Surge on Washington" - Fmr. UN Iraq Mission Chief

Friday, March 23rd, 2007
"The Surge of Baghdad Should Become the Surge on Washington" - Fmr. UN Iraq Mission Chief Hans Von Sponeck

Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream

---

Hans Von Sponeck - the former coordinator of the United Nations Humanitarian Mission in Iraq - joins us in our firehouse studio to talk about the troop surge in Baghdad, House and Senate bills on war funding, the 13-year sanction regime in Iraq and more. Von Sponeck is author of "A Different Kind of War: The UN Sanctions Regime in Iraq." [includes rush transcript]

---

On Capitol Hill, a Senate committee has approved a one hundred twenty two billion-dollar war spending bill that calls for President Bush to pull combat troops out of Iraq by next spring. The House plans to vote on a similar bill later today. Bush has threatened to veto both bills if they contain a deadline for withdrawal. The legislation comes as the United States enters its fifth year of the occupation of Iraq.

Yesterday, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon made a surprise visit to Baghdad. During a joint news conference with Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki, the UN chief said he might boost the United Nations" presence in Iraq because of improved security. Moments later the news conference was interrupted by a rocket that exploded just fifty yards away from the meeting. The blast shook the building and sent Ban Ki Moon ducking for cover behind a podium. The UN chief had earlier arrived on his first visit to Baghdad since he took office in January this year.

Today we are joined by a former UN official who lived in Iraq before the US invasion. Hans Von Sponeck has been a fierce critic of the war. In the late 1990s, he was the coordinator of the United Nations Humanitarian Mission in Iraq. He resigned in protest over the UN sanctions regime. He is also a former Assistant Secretary General of the UN. Hans Von Sponeck has new book is out titled "A Different Kind of War: The UN Sanctions Regime in Iraq."

• Hans Von Sponeck, a former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations. In the late 1990s, he was the coordinator of the United Nations Humanitarian Mission in Iraq. His new book is titled "A Different Kind of War: The UN Sanctions Regime in Iraq."

---

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

AMY GOODMAN: Today we’re joined by a former U.N. Official who lived in Iraq before the U.S. invasion. Hans Von Sponeck has been a fierce critic of the war. In the late 1990's he was the coordinator of the United Nations humanitarian mission in Iraq. He resigned in protest over the U.N. Sanctions Regime. He’s also Former Assistant Secretary General of the U.N. and has written a new book, it is called A Different Kind of War: The U.N. Sanctions Regime in Iraq. Welcome to Democracy Now!

HANS VON SPONECK: Good morning Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. First, the situation. You just saw--heard the explosion as the new U.N. Secretary General was announcing there seems to be increased stability, and maybe that a larger U.N. mission may come into Iraq.

HANS VON SPONECK: It gave him a first hand opportunity to understand how volatile the situation is in Iraq, and I hope it leads him to the conviction that less violence and more peace initiatives on the part of the United Nations might be the answer, rather than a surge in troop levels. I very strongly feel there should be a surge in the willingness in the U.S. Congress to insist that the United Nations, the role of the international community should be strengthened and the troops should come home with respect and honor, if that is still possible, as soon as possible.

JUAN GONZALEZ: What is the role of the U.N. right now in Iraq. Given, obviously it has to be very limited, anything can do, but what are U.N. personnel doing, if anything there?

HANS VON SPONECK: The United Nations staff, 55 of them, that’s all, are confined to the Green Zone and to Amman. From a distance they look at an Iraq that is crumbling. They can do very little. They do human-rights reporting. They have a small number of projects, but essentially they are confined to that limited space for reasons of security. In fact, most of the staff that Ban Ki-moon has allowed to be in Iraq is security-related staff. So it’s a holding operation. The U.N. Flag can fly, but it flies very timidly.

AMY GOODMAN: Of course the U.N. mission there was blown up. What was the effect of that?

HANS VON SPONECK: It was a massive demoralization for the United Nations, and Mr. Kofi Annan was right in taking the staff out, as painful as this is.

AMY GOODMAN: Sergio De Millo, the head of the mission killed.

HANS VON SPONECK: He was killed in my office. This is the office I occupied from the time I served in Baghdad. So I know the environment very well. It didn’t come as a surprise. It was the weak, the soft underbelly of the United Nations building area in Baghdad. And it’s a tragedy it happened, but out of that should be a United Nations that is more and more determined to encourage dialogue, rather than support an ill-fated attempt to solve problems in Iraq with military muscle.

JUAN GONZALEZ: In your book, A Different Kind of War, you actually get into the entire period of the sanctions in Iraq, and you document quite a bit of information, that I don’t think--certainly most Americans are not aware of. But I was especially interested -- we were talking before the show about the United Nations Compensation Committee, a commission that was set up to--after the Persian Gulf War. And you had quite a few examples there of what appear at least on the surface to be of questionable awards that were given out, plus it was a huge amount of money that was involved. Can you talk about that whole Compensation Commission?

HANS VON SPONECK: Well you know I don’t want to come across here as a vindictive person. The intention of this book was to shed light on a very dark chapter of United Nations by honestly identifying facts. And among these dramatic facts is one which is hardly known, certainly very little known in the U.S., and that is at a time when an increasing number of people were dying, particularly children, the United Nations agreed to pay out $18 billion U.S. dollars. That’s a lot of money. The total value of what came into Iraq during the entire Oil For Food Program, in terms of supplies, $28 billion. So, if you withhold $18 billion, that is a lot, that could have saved a lot of lives. That is bad enough.

What is worse is that many of these compensation claims were fraudulent. The U.N. discovered some, others were overlooked and paid out. There was a claim from the government of Jordan for having helped transiting guest workers to go home for $8.2 billion U.S. dollars, 8.2. The U.N. in the end awarded $79 million, less than a percent of what was asked for. The Iraqi money was like a cow that one could milk eternally in order to please governments that need the money while Iraqis back home were dying in large numbers. There are others examples, but maybe this would go to far on this occasion.

AMY GOODMAN: It’s very relevant to look at the Sanctions Regime against Iraq, given what is being proposed for Iran right now. Major powers have readied a draft resolution, to slap new punitive sanctions on Iran with the U.N. Security Council vote expected on Saturday, as Tehran remains defiant over its nuclear program. According to Agence France-Presse, a western diplomat speaking on condition of anonymity said the draft was expected to receive overwhelming support. Talk about the Regime of Sanctions and what it meant. I mean, people see what is happening in Iraq right now as horrific. You describe a very bad situation before the bombing of George Bush of 2003.

HANS VON SPONECK: You know, the sanction cheese in Iraq had many holes. The sanction cheese for Iran has bigger holes. It may look interesting on paper, but in terms of the reality for implementation, we are living today in a totally different situation. The world is more polarized than it ever was in the days of the sanctions against Iraq, but let me just pause here and say -- the comprehensive economic sanctions that Iraq endured isn’t what is proposed for Iran. It’s more a political—a political threat to the Iranians rather than a direct punishment of the people, as it was the case in Iraq.

Moreover, we must remember, the world of 2007 is not the world of the Iraq sanction time. There are new constellations, new organizations are springing up in protest over what I would call, as a friend of the U.S., I would call it the “Western One-way Street”, while in fact it is mainly an American highway on which we have traveled that the world is no longer to accept.

So the sanction package against Iran -- it may be a small -- I don’t think it is -- political victory for the U.S. to get a sanction resolution through the Security Council, but in terms of the implications for Iran as a whole, it will have limited, limited value.

AMY GOODMAN: You, in talking about Iraq today, are clearly saying that the U.N. is involved in supporting violent solutions. What exactly are you saying?

HANS VON SPONECK: The United Nations is painful for me as a person who believes in the U.N., who has served 32 years in that organization, was indeed an ally of bilateral policies that initially meant containing the country, and later in the last years of the Clinton Administration and very much since then, was a policy of punishment; punishing a people for enduring a dictator. A very strange logic here, but we could have in Baghdad, done whenever we wanted to do.

The government could have cooperated with the Security Council. It would have made no difference because the key word in this equation was regime change. So, as long as Saddam Hussein and his government were in power, no chance to do something else--Mr. Negroponte in a hearing in the U.S. Congress some time ago said, our first concern were weapons of mass destruction. We were interested with the peoples’ of welfare, but that was clearly a second priority.

That was the approach and the U.N. went along with this. And why am I mentioning it? Because I think it is very relevant in the debate about the kind of United Nations that we want to have, that we need, that the U.S. needs, as much as my country, Germany, or anyone else around the world, in these 192 member countries.

We need to take into account what happened in Iraq in debating the U.N. reform needs of today and tomorrow. And if we do this, then we do justice to the demand of political accountability. This is not looking to the future. Yes, we must look to the future. That’s demand from European politicians and American politicians is important, but not without looking back to understand what happened and to hold those on both sides of the fence. You have, I don’t want to talk too long here, but I want to say you have in Iraq a very strange reality. You have two perpetrators. You have Saddam Hussein, who has committed crimes against his people, but you also have, tragically enough, you have a United Nations that has equally become the perpetrator in harming, punishing, because of a faulty, I am afraid to say, U.S.-led, British-led, Spanish, Italian-led policy in the Security Council.

JUAN GONZALEZ: I am curious, in the period before you stepped down from your post, what kind of conversations you may have had with other leaders of the United Nations, or Kofi Annan directly about the concerns about the U.N.'s role and what their response was. Obviously they were aware that--of the negative role that the United States and Great Britain and some of the other great powers are playing. What kind of conversations did you have?

HANS VON SPONECK: Mr. Kofi Annan at all times has the heart in the right place, but he didn’t have enough muscle to succeed in convincing the Security Council that the rhetoric in the council that was always pro-people, that always recognized the plight of the Iraqi people, should translate and be provided equipped with the political will to bring about changes that would be more focused on the perpetrators, in this case the government of Iraq, rather than on innocent civilians. He knew that. Mr. Kofi Annan at no time forgot that. But, a multi-lateral diplomat is impotent vis-à-vis the powers of the day, if they have a different design. And the tragedy is that it is a 15-country security council that was overwhelmingly dominated by the United Kingdom and the United States, and the international community allowed this to happen.

AMY GOODMAN: You are here in United States. You return to Germany tomorrow. You have been here at a genocide conference at Columbia University in New York. As you watch the coverage of what happened—what is happening today, there is going to be a vote in congress for supplemental money, more than $100 billion, to--for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Your thoughts?

HANS VON SPONECK: I want to tell you that we are very carefully watching in Europe what is being debated in Washington. And we cannot fully comprehend why this courageous woman, Nancy Pelosi, isn’t making more progress among her colleagues on both sides of the fence. Why there are still republicans who can argue that it is a betrayal of the U.S. troops. I sympathize with these poor male and female G.I.s that have to serve in Iraq, but it is incomprehensible to me that there are still voices that insist that the way to go forward is to increase the troop levels, to maintain a policy that will leave in Afghanistan and in Iraq, to total disaster. This is not winnable. You cannot do what is intended to be done. Democracy and human rights and progress and development cannot be parachuted over Kabul or Iraq. And why is it? I don’t have an answer. Why is it that so many members of the U.S. Congress still maintain that the old policies can remain intact and should be implemented?

AMY GOODMAN: If the U.S. troops pulled out today?

HANS VON SPONECK: Can there be more chaos in Iraq than there is already? I am—I have links to people who have links to the resistance. The resistance says the Americans should talk to us. But if Ambassador Khalilzad in Baghdad talks to resistance people, the real resistance leaders start laughing. Because they say you are not talking to the right people. So, Condoleezza Rice should have her way. Mr. Cheney should not have his way. She should succeed in convincing her cabinet colleagues that the moment is to talk to each other. The moment is to talk to the resistance.

The moment is -- you mentioned the PKK sometime, a moment ago. And Hezbollah, Fatah, Hamas. They all belong around the table. You can no longer discuss an element of the Middle East crisis in isolation. It has to be -- I call it a strategy of a whole. Everybody belongs around the table and needs to be taken into account. We don’t recognize this, we will continue to waste money -- your money, our money, our good will, your people's lives, and I think that is a tragedy. And I hope that Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues will make headway in convincing republicans also to finally give up an un-winnable approach in dealing with the middle east.

JUAN GONZALEZ: You mentioned how in Europe people are watching very carefully what is happening here in the U.S. Congress. Obviously European governments -- several of them have gone through major changes since the start of the Iraq war. To what degree are the European nations doing what they should be doing in terms of standing up sufficiently? Clearly in Italy and Spain the climate has changed dramatically, but what can Europe do in terms of having an impact on American policy?

HANS VON SPONECK: The first order of priority in the European Union, of 27 countries, is to get our own act together, because we are very fragmented. There are many shades of opinion with regard to the Middle East situation, and there is no integrated foreign policy. And that plays into the very hands in the U.S. that should keep the hands off the political debate. The neoconservatives are trying hard to maintain this level of division in Europe, and the sooner our leaders in Europe recognize that, that they will play no role, that they will have a marginal impact at best, is--until they get their act together.

My own country in Germany, Mrs. Merkel, our chancellor is trying to repair the transatlantic damage. She tries very hard. But the fear that some of us have is that she tries at the expense of doing what needs to be done now and tell the friend across the Atlantic, tell Washington, as a friend, that the track, the road on which the U.S. Administration is traveling is leading to further disaster.

AMY GOODMAN: Hans Von Sponeck, I want to thank you very much for being with us. Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, was the Chief of the U.N. Humanitarian Mission in Iraq, quit over the Sanctions Regime. And has now written a book now translated into English, A Different Kind of War: The U.S. Sanctions Regime in Iraq.