riptide
3 December 2001, 17:08
Ok, it is long, and it is garbage. I warned you.
Stan Goff: The So-Called Evidence Is a Farce
> >
> > I'm a retired Special Forces Master Sergeant. That doesn't cut much
> > for those who will only accept the opinions of former officers on
> > military matters, since we enlisted swine are assumed to be
incapable
> > of grasping the nuances of doctrine.
> >
> > But I wasn't just in the army. I studied and taught military
science
> > and doctrine. I was a tactics instructor at the Jungle Operations
> > Training Center in Panama, and I taught Military Science at West
> > Point. And contrary to the popular image of what Special Forces
does,
> > SF's mission is to teach. We offer advice and assistance to foreign
> > forces. That's everything from teaching marksmanship to a private
to
> > instructing a Battalion staff on how to coordinate effective air
> > operations with a sister service.
> >
> > Based on that experience, and operations in eight designated
conflict
> > areas from Vietnam to Haiti, I have to say that the story we hear
on
> > the news and read in the newspapers is simply not believable. The
most
> > cursory glance at the verifiable facts, before, during, and after
> > September 11th, does not support the official line or conform to
the
> > current actions of the United States government.
> >
> > But the official line only works if they can get everyone to accept
> > its underlying premises. I'm not at all surprised about the
Republican
> > and Democratic Parties repeating these premises. They are simply
two
> > factions within a single dominant political class, and both are
> > financed by the same economic powerhouses. My biggest
disappointment,
> > as someone who identifies himself with the left, has been the tacit
> > acceptance of those premises by others on the left, sometimes
naively,
> > and sometimes to score some morality points. Those premises are
> > twofold. One, there is the premise that what this de facto
> > administration is doing now is a "response" to September 11th. Two,
> > there is the premise that this attack on the World Trade Center and
> > the Pentagon was done by people based in Afghanistan. In my
opinion,
> > neither of these is sound.
> >
> > To put this in perspective we have to go back not to September
11th,
> > but to last year or further.
> >
> > A man of limited intelligence, George W. Bush, with nothing more
than
> > his name and the behind-the-scenes pressure of his powerful
father-a
> > former President, ex-director of Central Intelligence, and an oil
> > man-is systematically constructed as a candidate, at tremendous
cost.
> > Across the country, subtle and not-so-subtle mechanisms are put
into
> > place to disfranchise a significant fraction of the Democrat's
> > African-American voter base. This doesn't come out until Florida
> > becomes a battleground for Electoral College votes, and the
magnitude
> > of the story has been suppressed by the corporate media to this
day.
> > In a decision so lacking in legitimacy, the Supreme Court will
neither
> > by-line the author of the decision nor allow the decision to ever
be
> > used as a precedent, Bush v. Gore awards the presidency of the
United
> > States to a man who loses the popular vote in Florida and loses the
> > national popular vote by over 600,000.
> >
> > This de facto regime then organizes a very interesting cabinet. The
> > Vice President is an oil executive and the former Secretary of
> > Defense. The National Security Advisor is a director on the board
of a
> > transnational oil corporation and a Russia scholar. The Secretary
of
> > State is a man with no diplomatic experience whatsoever, and the
> > former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The other interesting
> > appointment is Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense. Rumsfeld is
> > the former CEO of Searle Pharmaceuticals. He and Cheney were
featured
> > as speakers at the May, 2000, Russian-American Business Leaders
Forum.
> > So the consistent currents in this cabinet are petroleum, the
former
> > Soviet Union, and the military.
> >
> > Based on the record of Daddy Bush, in all his guises, and the
general
> > trajectory of US foreign policy as far back as the Carter
> > Administration, I feel I can reasonably conclude that Middle
Eastern
> > and South Asian fossil fuels are one of their major preoccupations.
> > Not just because this klavern has some very direct financial
interests
> > in fossil fuel, but because they surely know that worldwide oil
> > production is peaking as we speak, and will soon begin a permanent
and
> > precipitous decline that will completely change the character of
> > civilization as we know it within 20 years.
> >
> > Even the left seems to be in deep denial about this, but the math
is
> > available. And, no, alternative energies and energy technologies
will
> > not save us. All the alternatives in the world can not begin to
> > provide more than a tiny fraction of the energy base now provided
by
> > oil. This makes it more than a resource, and the drive to control
> > what's left more than an economic competition.
> >
> > I further conclude that the economic colonization of the former
Soviet
> > Union is probably high on that agenda, and in fact has a powerful
> > synergy with the issue of petroleum. Russia not only holds vast
> > untapped resources that beckon to imperialism in crisis, it remains
a
> > credible military and nuclear challenger in the region.
> >
> > We have not one, but three members of the Bush de facto cabinet
with
> > military credentials, which makes the cabinet look quite a lot like
a
> > military General Staff. All this way before September 11th.
> >
> > Then there's the subject of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
> > NATO might have expected consignment to the dustbin of the Cold War
> > after the Eastern Bloc shattered in 1991. Peace dividend and all
that.
> > But it didn't. It expanded directly into the former states of the
> > Eastern Bloc toward the former Soviet Union, and contributed
> > significant forces to the devastation of Iraq-a key country in the
> > world oil market, over which control translates into the ability to
> > manipulate oil prices.
> >
> > NATO is a military formation, and the United States exerts the
> > controlling interest in it. It seemed like a form without a
function,
> > but it remedied that pretty quickly.
> >
> > Then when Yugoslavia refused to play ball with the International
> > Monetary Fund, the US and Germany began a systematic campaign of
> > destabilization there, even using some of the veterans of
Afghanistan
> > in that campaign.
> > NATO became the military arm of that agenda-the break-up of
Yugoslavia
> > into compliant statelets, the further containment of the former
Soviet
> > Union, and the future pipeline easement for Caspain Sea oil to
Western
> > European markets through Kosovo.
> >
> > You see, this is important to understand, and people-even those
> > against the war talk-are tending to overlook the significance of
it.
> > NATO is not a guarantor of international law, and it is not a
> > humanitarian organization.
> >
> > It is a military alliance with one very dominant partner. And it
can
> > no longer claim to be a defensive alliance against European
> > socialists. It is an instrument of military aggression.
> >
> > NATO is the organization that is now going to thrust further along
the
> > 40th parallel from the Balkans through the Southern Asian Republics
of
> > the former Soviet Union. The US military has already taken control
of
> > a base in Uzbekistan. No one is talking about how what we are doing
> > seems to be a very logical extension of a strategy that was already
in
> > motion, and has been in motion for two decades. Once we recognize
the
> > pattern of activity designed to simultaneously consolidate control
> > over Middle Eastern and South Asian oil, and contain and colonize
the
> > former Soviet Union, Afghanistan is exactly where they need to go
to
> > pursue that agenda.
> >
> > Afghanistan borders Iran, India, and even China but, more
importantly,
> > the Central Asian Republics of the former Soviet Union, Uzbekistan,
> > Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. These border Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan
> > borders Russia. Turkmenistan sits on the Southeastern quadrant of
the
> > Caspian Sea, whose oil the Bush Administration dearly covets.
> >
> > Afghanistan is necessary for two things: as a base of operations to
> > begin the process of destabilizing, breaking off, and establishing
> > control over the South Asian Republics, which will begin within the
> > next 18-24 months in my opinion, and constructing a pipeline
through
> > Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan to deliver petroleum to the
> > Asian market.
> >
> > The BBC was recently told by Niaz Naik, a Pakistani Foreign
Secretary,
> > that senior American officials were warning them as early as
mid-July
> > that military action for mid-October was being planned for
> > Afghanistan. In 1996, the Department of Energy was issuing reports
on
> > the desirability of a pipeline through Afghanistan, and in 1998,
> > Unocal testified before the House Subcommittee on Asia and the
Pacific
> > that this pipeline was crucial to transport Caspian Basin oil to
the
> > Indian Ocean.
> >
> > Given this evidence that a military operation to secure at least a
> > portion of Afghanistan has been on the table, possibly as early as
> > five years ago, I can't help but conclude that the actions we are
> > seeing put into motion now are part of a pre-September 11th agenda.
> > I'm absolutely sure of that, in fact. The planning alone for
> > operations, of this scale, that are now taking shape, would take
many
> > months. And we are seeing them take shape in mere weeks.
> >
> > It defies common sense. This administration is lying about this
whole
> > thing being a "reaction" to September 11th. That leads me, in short
> > order, to be very suspicious of their yet-to-be-provided evidence
that
> > someone in Afghanistan is responsible. It's just too damn
convenient.
> > Which also leads me to wonder-just for the sake of knowing-what
> > actually did happen on September 11th, and who actually is
> > responsible.
> >
> > The so-called evidence is a farce. The US presented Tony Blair's
> > puppet government with the evidence, and of the 70 so-called points
of
> > evidence, only nine even referred to the attacks on the World Trade
> > Center, and those points were conjectural. This is a bullshit story
> > from beginning to end. Presented with the available facts, any
16-year
> > old with a liking for courtroom dramas could tear this story apart
> > like a two-dollar shirt. But our corporate press regurgitates it
> > uncritically. But then, as we should know by now, their role is to
> > legitimize.
> >
> > This cartoon heavy they've turned bin Laden into makes no sense,
when
> > you begin to appreciate the complexity and synchronicity of the
> > attacks. As a former military person who's been involved in the
> > development of countless operations orders over the years, I can
tell
> > you that this was a very sophisticated and costly enterprise that
> > would have left what we call a huge "signature".
> >
> > In other words, it would be very hard to effectively conceal.
> >
> > So there's a real question about why there was no warning of this.
> > That can be a question about the efficacy of the government's
> > intelligence apparatus. That can be a question about various
policies
> > in the various agencies that had to be duped to orchestrate this
> > action. And it can also be a question about whether or not there
was
> > foreknowledge of the event, and that foreknowledge is being covered
> > up. To dismiss this concern out of hand as the rantings of
conspiracy
> > nuts is premature. And there is a history of this kind of thing
being
> > done by national political bosses, including the darling of
liberals,
> > Franklin Roosevelt. The evidence is very compelling that the
Roosevelt
> > Administration deliberately failed to act to stop Pearl Harbor in
> > order to mobilize enough national anger to enter the World War II.
> >
> > I have no idea why people aren't asking some very specific
questions
> > about the actions of Bush and company on the day of the attacks.
> >
> > Follow along:
> > Four planes get hijacked and deviate from their flight plans, all
the
> > while on FAA radar. The planes are all hijacked between 7:45 and
8:10
> > AM Eastern Daylight Time.
> >
> > Who is notified?
> > This is an event already that is unprecedented. But the President
is
> > not notified and going to a Florida elementary school to hear
children
> > read.
> >
> > By around 8:15 AM, it should be very apparent that something is
> > terribly wrong. The President is glad-handing teachers.
> >
> > By 8:45, when American Airlines Flight 11 crashes into the World
Trade
> > Center, Bush is settling in with children for his photo ops at
Booker
> > Elementary. Four planes have obviously been hijacked
simultaneously,
> > an event never before seen in history, and one has just dived into
the
> > worlds best know twin towers, and still no one notifies the nominal
> > Commander in Chief.
> >
> > No one has apparently scrambled any Air Force interceptors either.
> >
> > At 9:03, United Flight 175 crashes into the remaining World Trade
> > Center building. At
> >
> > 9:05, Andrew Card, the Presidential Chief of Staff whispers to
George
> > W. Bush. Bush "briefly turns somber" according to reporters.
> > Does he cancel the school visit and convene an emergency meeting?
No.
> > He resumes listening to second graders read about a little girl's
pet
> > fucking goat, and continues this banality even as American Airlines
> > Flight 77 conducts an unscheduled point turn over Ohio and heads in
> > the direction of Washington DC.
> > Has he instructed Chief of Staff Card to scramble the Air Force?
No.
> >
> > An excruciating 25 minutes later, he finally deigns to give a
public
> > statement telling the United States what they already have figured
> > out; that there's been an attack by hijacked planes on the World
Trade
> > Center.
> > There's a hijacked plane bee-lining to Washington, but has the Air
> > Force been scrambled to defend anything yet? No.
> >
> > At 9:30, when he makes his announcement, American Flight 77 is
still
> > ten minutes from its target, the Pentagon.
> >
> > The Administration will later claim they had no way of knowing that
> > the Pentagon might be a target, and that they thought Flight 77 was
> > headed to the White House, but the fact is that the plane has
already
> > flown South and past the White House no-fly zone, and is in fact
> > tearing through the sky at over 400 nauts.
> >
> > At 9:35, this plane conducts another turn, 360 degrees over the
> > Pentagon, all the while being tracked by radar, and the Pentagon is
> > not evacuated, and there are still no fast-movers from the Air
Force
> > in the sky over Alexandria and DC.
> >
> > Now, the real kicker: A pilot they want us to believe was trained
at a
> > Florida puddle-jumper school for Piper Cubs and Cessnas, conducts a
> > well-controlled downward spiral, descending the last 7,000 feet in
> > two-and-a-half minutes, brings the plane in so low and flat that it
> > clips the electrical wires across the street from the Pentagon, and
> > flies it with pinpoint accuracy into the side of this building at
460
> > nauts.
> >
> > When the theory about learning to fly this well at the
puddle-jumper
> > school began to lose ground, it was added that they received
further
> > training on a flight simulator.
> > This is like saying you prepared your teenager for her first drive
on
> > I-40 at rush hour by buying her a video driving game. It's horse
shit!
> >
> > There is a story being constructed about these events. My crystal
ball
> > is not working today, so I can't say why.
> >
> > But at the least, this so-called Commander-in-Chief and his staff
that
> > we are all supposed to follow blindly into some ill-defined war on
> > terrorism is criminally negligent or unspeakably stupid. And at the
> > worst, if more is known or was known, and there is an effort to
> > conceal the facts, there is a criminal conspiracy going on.
> >
> > Certainly, the Bush de facto administration was facing a confluence
of
> > crises from which they were temporarily rescued by this event.
Whether
> > they played a sinister role or not, there is little doubt that they
> > have at the very least opportunistically pounced on this attack to
> > overcome their lack of legitimacy, to shift the blame for the
> > encroaching recession from capitalism to the September 11th terror
> > attack, to legitimize their pre-existing foreign policy agenda, and
to
> > establish and consolidate repressive measures domestically and
silence
> > dissent.
> >
> > In many ways, September 11th pulled the Bush cookies out of the
fire.
> >
> > And given them the green light to begin constructing a long-term
> > scenario within which to establish fascistic control measures at
home
> > and abroad as a citadel for the ruling class in the catastrophic
> > conjuncture that we are entering based on the end of oil.
> >
> > This elephant in the living room is being studiously ignored. In
fact,
> > the domestic repression has already begun, officially and
> > unofficially. It's kind of a latter day McCarthyism. I participated
in
> > a teach-in at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, on the 17th of
September,
> > and though not a single person on the panel excused or justified
the
> > attacks, and every person there offered either condolences and
prayers
> > for the victims, we were excoriated within two days as "enemies of
> > America." Yesterday an op-ed called for my deportation (to where,
one
> > can only guess). Now Herr Ashcroft is fast tracking the biggest
> > abrogation of US civil liberties since the so-called anti-terrorism
> > legislation after the Oklahoma City bombing - which by the way
hasn't
> > resulted in anti-terrorism but in the acceleration of the
application
> > of the racist death penalty. The FBI has defined terrorist groups
not
> > by whether any given group has ever acted as terrorists, but by
their
> > beliefs. Some socialists and anti-globalization groups have already
> > been identified by name as terrorist groups, even though there is
not
> > a single shred of evidence that they have ever participated in any
> > criminal activity. It reminds me of the Smith Act that was finally
> > declared unconstitutional, but only after a hell of a lot of people
> > served a hell of a long time in jail for the crime of thinking.
> >
> > I think this also points to yet another huge problems that the Bush
> > regime was facing. Worldwide resistance to the whole so-called
> > neoliberal agenda, which is a prettied up term for debt-leverage
> > imperialism. While debt and the threat of sanctions has been used
to
> > coerce nations in the periphery, we have to understand that the
final
> > guarantor of compliance remains military action. For a global
economic
> > agenda, there is always a corresponding political and military
agenda.
> >
> > The focal point of these actions in the short term is Southern
Asia,
> > but they have already scripted this as a worldwide and protracted
> > fight against terrorism.
> >
> > It's far better than drug wars as a rationalization, and the drug
war
> > thing was being discredited in any case. Leftists are regaining
power
> > and popularity in Venezuela, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Ecuador,
> > Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Brazil, and Argentina.
Cuba
> > has gained immense prestige over the last few years. The empire is
> > beginning to unravel. We can hardly justify intervention in these
> > places by saying they are not towing the economic line by allowing
the
> > absolute domination of their societies by transnational
corporations.
> > That exposes the agenda. So we simply claim they are supporting
> > terrorism.
> >
> > It's for all these reasons I say the left has missed the boat on
this
> > one, by allowing them to get away with rushing past the question of
> > who did what on September 11th.
> >
> > If the official story is a lie, and I think the circumstantial case
is
> > strong enough to stay with this question, then we really do need to
> > know what happened. And we need to understand concretely what the
> > motives of this administration are.
> >
> > And we need to understand more than just their immediate motives,
but
> > where the larger social forces that underwrite our situation right
now
> > are headed. I do not think this administration is engaged in the
> > deliberative process of a political grouping that is on top of
their
> > game. They are putting together some very deliberative technical
> > solutions in response to a larger situation that it slipping
rapidly
> > out of their control. Like clear cutting. There's a very smart
> > technology being employed to do a very dumb thing.
> >
> > What they are responding to is not September 11th, but the
beginning
> > of a permanent and precipitous decline in worldwide oil production,
> > the beginning of a deep and protracted worldwide recession, and the
> > unraveling of the empire.
> >
> > This brings me to a point about what all this means for Americans'
> > security, which they are perfectly justified to worry about.
> >
> > The actions being prepared by this administration will not only not
> > enhance our security, it will significantly degrade it. Military
> > action against many groups across the globe, which is what the
> > administration is telling us quite openly they are planning to do,
> > will put a lot of backs against the wall. That can't be very
secure.
> >
> > The concept of war being touted here is a violation of the
principles
> > of war on several counts, and will inevitably lead to military
> > catastrophes, if you're inclined to view this from a position of
moral
> > and political neutrality.
> >
> > And the people who are now in possession of half the world's
remaining
> > oil reserves are subject to destabilization for which we can't even
> > pretend to predict the consequences-but loss of access to critical
> > energy supplies is certainly within the realm of possibility. Worst
of
> > all, we will be destabilizing Pakistan, a nuclear power in an
active
> > conflict with its neighbor, and we will be provoking Russia,
another
> > nuclear power. The security stakes don't get any higher, and
Americans
> > can ill afford to ignore nukes.
> >
> > And I think that this domestic agenda is a tremendous threat to the
> > security of anyone who is critical of the government or their
> > corporate financiers, and we already know that the real threats are
> > against populations that can easily be scapegoated as the domestic
> > crisis deepens.
> >
> > There is a very real threat right now of creeping fascism in this
> > country, and that phenomenon requires its domestic enemies.
> > Historically those enemies have included leftists, trade unionists,
> > and racially and nationally oppressed sectors. This whole "state of
> > emergency" mentality is already being used to quiet the public
> > discourses of anti-racism, of feminism, of environmentalism, and of
> > both socialism and anarchism. And while there is token resistance
by
> > officials to anti-Muslim xenophobia, the stereotypical images have
> > saturated the media, and the government is already beginning to
openly
> > re-instate racial profiling. It is only a short step from there to
go
> > after other groups. We have long been prepared by the ideologies of
> > overt and covert racism, and racism as both institution and
> > corresponding psychology in the United States is nearly
intractable.
> >
> > It's for all these reasons that I say emphatically that we can not
> > accept anything from this administration; not their policies nor
their
> > bullshit stories. What they are doing is very, very dangerous, and
the
> > time to fight back against them, openly, is right now, before they
can
> > consolidate their power and their agenda. Once they have done that,
> > our job becomes much more difficult.
> >
> > The left, if it has the capacity to self-organize out of its
oblivion,
> > needs to understand its critical roles here. We have to play the
role
> > of credible, hard-working, and non-sectarian partners in a broader
> > peace-movement. We have to study, synthesize, and describe our
current
> > historical conjuncture. And we have to prepare leadership for the
> > decisive conflict that will emerge to first defeat fascism then
take
> > political power.
> >
> > Rosa Luxemburg's words are truer than ever right now. We are not
faced
> > with a choice between socialism and capitalism, but socialism or
> > barbarism.
> >
> > And what we can least afford are denial and timidity.
> >
> >
vBulletin® v3.8.3, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.