An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
“Iraq-gate”: Alarming Details About US Role
I don’t know much about Counterpunch, an American newsletter, or its credibility. However, the two articles I read recently are quite provocative and, alarming, if true.
First:
The Inexplicable Enrichment of Bush Cronies:
The Iraq Money Trail — By EVELYN PRINGLE
Second:
Income Redistribution in Disguise: Escalating Military Spending —- By ISMAEL HOSSEIN-ZADEH
opinions powered by SendLove.to
47 Responses to ““Iraq-gate”: Alarming Details About US Role”
I don’t pay much attention to Counterpunch.
Swaraaj – Cockburn and St. Clair have been around the Journalism game for a long time. Their views are very left wing and anti-american, sort of like Chomsky. Nonetheless, there is an element of truth in everything they write, it’s just not the whole truth. They are advocates of a particular point of view and very much anti-war so they portray events and activities in a very black and white picture. They are a mirror of some of the right wing rags like National Review and Weekly Standard.
I do read both left wing and right wing propaganda sheets as a trigger to explore issues I might have otherwise missed. Take the conclusions of such sheets with a grain of salt.
jdledell-
I agree that the source is a lefty rag- but also agree with the basic premise of one of the articles. The Iraq War has benefitted private defense contractors who deal with the government enormously. Billions have been spent on weapons systems that are not even useful in a war of counterinsurgency, while the tool that would have won over the Iraqis- our early exit after the removal of Sadaam was never employed. Eisenhower, who was far from a lefty, warned us about the power of the military-industrial complex, because he knew that wars could be started and waged due to their influence, and not for valid causes. If you want to truly understand this administration’s goals- look at their successes- the top donors to the RNC and to their election and reelection who have profitted immensely by their governance, at the expense of the country as a whole.
If there are cogent arguments against what this article says, I would be interested in reading them here.
I love how people that oppose war and oppression are considered anti-American. By that definition it really makes you question the value in being pro-American.
I WONDER WHAT THIS BUTTON DOES?
“I don’t know much> about Counterpunch, an American newsletter, or its credibility.” – The swami who refuses to explain why Saddam’s nearly 2 million dead were somehow more “peaceful” than the American war to liberate Iraqis
Well, swami, you really should, especially when it could undermine your credibility. Fortunately, I do know something about it.
Whitewashing Anti-Semitism at CounterPunch
Counterpunch Defends Anti-Semitism
“Now Counterpunch has decided to celebrate Gilad Atzmon, proudly proclaimed by Cockburn to be a “CounterPuncherâ€?. Who is Atzmon?
Atzmon is a subliterate ex-Israeli saxophone player living in Britain, where he is active in numerous anti-Semitic organizations.
“Counterpunch is a web magazine owned and edited by Alexander Cockburn. Cockburn’s anti-Americanism can compete only with his anti-Semitism, and Counterpunch largely promotes these two sentiments on its pages”
Do you see the pattern here?
love how people that oppose war and oppression are considered anti-American. By that definition it really makes you question the value in being pro-American.
Chris, I agree they are not one and the same. America was born out of a healthy dissent from authority- and the founding fathers were all considered treasonous by the crown at one point. You can disagree with official government policy and be as patriotic as anyone, because patriotism is love of country- not love of its governmental policy.
Good…it seems you have started some deep breathing exercise before typing your thoughts!!! I was waiting for this!
‘Evil’ is a relative word. It was bandied so extravagantly by President Bush that many people in the USA really got indoctrinated into believing that leaders, especially Muslim, outside ‘civilized’ USA were all ‘evil’.
No one in his right mind can justify the harsh and brutal (and barbaric) methods used by Saddam Hussein.
But please remember most of these ‘barbaric methods’ were used when he faced a rebellion or was attacked personally within his country. He did this in self-defence. He did not go out of his country to commit such actions.
President George W. Bush has also used harsh and brutal methods against those whom he thinks are his enemies or are simply ‘evil’.
Without any conclusive proof, Mr Bush decided to invade Iraq, and kill its leader. (Mr Saddam Hussein was the President of Iraq, recognised as such by the comity of nations).
Tomorrow Mr Bush, and the Americans, may decide that General Musharraf has turned into an ‘evil’. Then what?
Such things are decided not by unilateral decisions taken by one country but by involving the world community. There has to be thing called ‘fair play’ and ‘justice’ even though a particular action/person may appear to be ‘evil’ or ‘barbaric’.
No it’s not. There is evil and evil is evil. That’s why we call it evil.
(Kuwait anyone?)
(Iran anyone?)
Is it okay, then, for a dictator to torture civlians and to kill them quite randomly?
in selfdefense? Are you kidding me? Yeah, that Kurdish village he ordered to be extinguished was truly an act of self defense, right?
I wonder what you would have said if Bush would have done the same thing to, say, Salem.
Except for when those who want to decdie about this matter are evil and barbaric themselves like, say, the Mullahs of Iran.
Tomorrow Mr Bush, and the Americans, may decide that General Musharraf has turned into an ‘evil’. Then what?
I guess there was no room on the “Axis of Evil” for Pakistan, lol- especially when we needed Musharaf’s cooperation against the Taliban so badly. But, your general point is correct- merely using the black/white good/evil dichotomy is an overly simplistic way of defining other powers in the world. Some in America may confuse it with moral clarity- but in reality Bush has done some of the same things that Hussein did (though to a lesser degree) Just putting on a cowboy hat doesn’t make you the good guys.
Please define evil. Thank you.
Bush was copying Reagan’s “Evil Empire” speech which defined the Soviet regime. But Reagan travelled to Russia and learned that he was wrong in a lot of his impressions of an atheistic evil monolith. Bush doesn’t have the intellectual curiosity to redefine his rhetoric- he finds it politically useful to demonize who ever stands in his way- its red meat for the base. That way he can blame the moral relativism of the rest of us for his policies failures.
When I worked with The Tribune newspaper in the 1980s, I wrote an editorial that the then President Zia-ul-Haq of Pakistan is likely be bumped off because he spoke rather harshly about the US policy and had begun to tilt towards the then Soviet Union.
Exactly 17 days later General Zia’s plane crashed, which also carried the US ambassador to Pakistan, killing all on board. No one still knows who killed General Zia. Incidentally, General Zia also fought a war by proxy in Afghanistan on behalf of US, aiding the Mujahidin against the superpower Soviet Union, in the Soviet-Afghan War.
So its is just Déjà vu when General Musharraf starts cosying up to Russia…
Let’s hope and pray that this ‘friend and ally’ has not turned into an ‘evil’ in the eyes of those who matter (and those who write comments here)!!!
The world knows that the CIA has overt and covert games to play, especially when it comes to rubbing the nose of any powerful leader in the world who begins to take an independent line.
And that’s why I say that ‘evil’ is a relative word.
The world leaders are watching with concealed joy the ‘weakening’ of the USA (morally and physically).
I feel sad because I saw a great potential in the USA because it was one of the rare nations that allowed the blossoming of talent from all over the world and cherished democratic and liberal values.
I hope and pray that this present state of affairs is just an aberration and the nightmare would end when the next elections are held in the USA.
Swaraaj- We still have the blossoming of talent and the values. Hopefully, in ’08 we will also have more enlightened leadership. Those who would never dream of calling themselves white supremacists have no qualms about asserting power in the name of American supremacy. There are more benevolent roles for a superpower to play than exerting the use of raw military power. But the Bush administration is not sophisticated enough to understand the proper use of diplomacy on the world stage. Their interest is in helping their big donors scoop up their winnings as the rest of us pay for it.
Swaraaj:
Evil… Definition: “e·vil
adjective
Definition:
1. morally bad: profoundly immoral or wrong
2. harmful: deliberately causing great harm, pain, or upset
This evil act is clearly the work of terrorists.
3. causing misfortune: characterized by, bringing, or signifying bad luck
an evil omen
4. malicious: characterized by a desire to cause hurt or harm
an evil mood
5. devilish: connected with the devil or other powerful destructive forces
evil spirits
6. disagreeable: very unpleasant
What an evil smell!
noun (plural e·vils)
Definition:
1. wickedness: the quality of being profoundly immoral or wrong
2. force causing harmful effects: the force believed to bring about harmful, painful, or unpleasant events
a struggle between good and evil
3. something evil: a situation or thing that is very unpleasant, harmful, or morally wrong
the social evil of alcoholism
[ Old English yfel < Indo-European, "exceeding due limits"]
e·vil·ly adverb
e·vil·ness noun”
Another one:
“e·vil (vl)
adj. e·vil·er, e·vil·est
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.
n.
1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
2. That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader’s power to do both good and evil.
3. An evil force, power, or personification.
4. Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice.
adv. Archaic
In an evil manner.”
Well, there seems to be quite a consensus about this matter.
I think we all know the definition of evil- but it has been used to tag specific leaders or countries in a subjective way. Swaaraj is right- that tomorrow it could be decided to label Musharraf as “evil”.
Omigod, we are defining evil (MVDG and Swaraaj) As if there were only one evil, and that evil stands in opposition to one ethical moral
Life would be so much easier if that were true; there would be no need for these debates, for one. We could all just march happily in the same predetermined direction, no thinking required. Should anyone raise a hand to ask a question about the meaning and direction of the march, he would be instantly squelched with cries of MORAL RELATIVISM.
This is the march for timid souls, who need answers without questions. The real heroes in our march are the courageous souls who do ask questions.
Even before the appearance of Saddam, evil was on the scene, and evil has been on the scene ever since. It has shown a multitude of its faces. Saddam’s reign was evil (one face of evil) and terrorism is evil (another face). Moral America stepped into the ring to defeat evil, but we now see the truth in the saying about the road to hell being paved with good intentions.
Good intentions can beget evil as easily as evil can beget evil. Real life is no place for the timid and their ready-made answers.
Real life requires the courageous who can pick through the garbage heaps of empty slogans, political theories and beliefs to find the best solutions for the messy reality of living.
The Inexplicable Enrichment of Bush
CroniesFamily:It isn’t like W’s brother Neil, after the S&L scandal, didn’t startup an educational s/w package and market the same in Texas and Florida. Of course NCLB had nothing to do with this or UAE monies didn’t fund start-up. Why couldn’t Neil just go to the local Savings and Loan for funding.
I hear Neil and Roger Clinton are starting up…
There are all different shades of grays in the middle- its not just about good and evil. And yes Saddam was evil, but I’m not sure our motives were pure in removing him. (Wasn’t he just as evil in the ’80′s when we were selling him WMD’s?)
Sorry forgot the close tag
Michael,
Germany, Russia, Britain, Spain, Rome and more all defended the worst excesses of their empires with protestations of good triumphing over evil, the need for self-defense and bringing civilization to barbarians.
MVDG-
Find one actual person, place or event that answers any of your definitions of evil, while demonstrating that this same definition does not apply to any other, concurrent person, place or event – without resorting to personal preferences.
I am sorry but being an editor of the blog does not give one the liberty to give a lavish spread to one’s own ‘comments’ (or what)!!!
There is some communication gap somewhere.
Obviously, I don’t want definitions from the dictionaries.
I want to know what you understand by the word ‘evil’…in five lines or so, if possible.
Thank you.
AMAZING!
You dodged me 4 times, and now you claim to have been “waiting for this?” LOL. I’m not even going to go there.
“He [Saddam] did this [criminal oppression of his people] in self-defence. He did not go out of his country to commit such actions.” — swaraaj chauhan
TRULY UNBELIEVABLE!
So, Iran and Kuwait were not “out of his country?”
What blatant “historical revisionism!
And you are going to sit there with a straight face and tell us that THIS is self defense????!!!
and this?
or this?
see also:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-04-13-saddam-secrets-usat_x.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101689,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1004174,00.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39045
Are you that indifferent to real torture and massive human rights violations? Is it that easy for you dismiss Saddam’s internationally recognized crimes as “self defense?” Are you really so cynical as to feign taking a moral high ground with your blaming the US for Muslim perfidy and your condemnation of “abu ghraib,” whose barely marginal “evil” has been corrected???
If so, that’s REAL Chutzpah!
I don’t know which is worse: the fact that you brazenly propound such blatant historical inaccuracies, or that so many of your readers fall for them.
I really am at a loss as to what to say, except that I don’t need you to tell me it isn’t worth being angry about. I would only be harming myself and doing nothing to help you. After all, if you won’t fix what is wrong with yourself, no one can force you to.
Don’t get hysterical. Cool it.
Let’s be clear…who was backing Saddam Hussein to take on Iran? Just check out.
Kuwait…Do you know the controversial history…Do you know why Saddam was carrying out such experiments…Who was backing him?
Just check and then get back.
Michael van der Galien
According to his bio, S.C. has worked for other news agencies. Given his remarks, is it any wonder why we on the Right don’t trust what most of them write any more?
I try to avoid any sources I’ve found consistantly untrustworthy. I forget who said it, but the quote goes, “Be careful what you put in your brain, because once it’s in there you will never get it out.”
Also, I don’t know if you have heard this, but you might find that listening to it adds a new perspective to current events. I don’t necessarily agree with all of it, but think it’s pretty close to home.
Regards
Please give a break…yonason and Michael. We are here to discuss the two articles from the Counterpunch mentioned in my post.
I only raised a question how credible the articles published in Counterpunch are.
I know it is a ‘tedious’ and time-consuming job to go through the articles…
But I did not bargain for such heavy digression and hysteria.
yonason,
I’m sure that Heritage Foundation, staffed by people like L. Paul Bremer, is a great source of unbiased information
I love tennis. And it is said that if you play with a better player you improve your game…otherwise!!!
So I leave the field to…and retire…
This is definitely my final comment in this post. Thank you.
Swaraaj,
We’re gonna miss you.
Swaraaj: Counterpunch is considered by many people not to be the best of sources, to say the least. Read it with a grain of salt.
Also: evil – I find the definition in the dictionary to be quite clear and concise.
Eerily, commenters like Yonason have reminded me of a young man I knew who fell prey to a religious cult.
He knew absolutely what sin was and what evil was. Unfortunately, one of his evils was a close attachment to parents and family.
I would have preferred a little moral relativism, in this case.
OH, YEAH. ONE MORE THING BEFORE I GO.
If “evil” is relative, how is it that S.C. is so “Alarmed?” …about anything?
I mean, if Saddam can kill all those people because he subjectively believes it is in “self-defense,” why does S.C. pretend moral outrage over America’s actions, which can also be called “self-defense?” [Remember, if everything is subjective, America's perceptions are as valid as anyone elses].
It is a completely arbitrary choice (not even relative, despite what he says). Therefore it is a pretense because he has no moral benchmark against which to show how good or evil anything is, let alone in this case.
He gives the impression that he knows exactly what evil is being committed, but when pressed he can’t define it in any meaningful way; and how could he, when it’s parameters have to be flexible enough to change to suit his whims?
…so…
If good and bad are not even relative but arbitrary, he has not only no moral but no logical basis for calling anything evil. If nothing is really evil, than why is he even bothering to try to convince us that anyone is wrong about anything?
The only reason he could possibly have for taking any side would be because he’s got some personal stake in the outcome. If so, it’s completely self-serving, and all he cares about is what he himself will get out of it. The only reason to communicate his ideas to others then, would be to con enough of them into believing it is in their interrest as well, whether it is or isn’t. To do that one has to appeal to THEIR sense of outrage, which can only be triggered if they think a wrong has been done.
What we are witnessing is human interaction at it’s lowest level. It doesn’t lead to order, but to chaos. It doesn’t lead to solutions to but to problems. It is a manipulative appeal to our basest instincts and as such it is not ennobling, but debasing.
This has been one of the most enlightening experiences I’ve had in a while, to see such a transparent example of what we refer to as “the Left” in action. Thanks!
ON THE OTHER HAND . . .
He might not be manipulative at all, just confused.
But if that’s the case, then don’t wake me until he gets his act together.
What a ridiculous display of rational discourse. Evil is not as black and white as yonason and MVDG portray. Evil exists on a continuum. To some extent “evil” exists in every person’s soul. No one person is perfectly evil or good. The scale can tip one’s actions in either direction and the degree of “evil” in a person may be different during various periods of their lifetime.
There is no question that Saddam did many evil things. He aslo did many good things, including enhancing education and the status of women. Our early American Presidents did many good things and many evil things. For example, under the administration of a number of American Presidents we carried on a genuine genocide against the native Americans in order to use the land. I think under most definitions that would be considered “evil”. Yet none of our history books speak negatively of that activity at all. Was supplying Saddam with intellegence and weapons to be used against Iran, good or evil? Was firebombing Tokyo and Dresden civilians, good or evil? Were the actions of the Irgun and Stern Gang, good or evil? Was killing 400,000 Philipinos who objected to our occupation, good or evil? I could list thousands of such questions and the answers would be complex and agonizing. So get off your high horses and admit some humility in the complexity such questions require.
“Let’s be clear…who was backing Saddam Hussein to take on Iran? Just check out.” – S.C.
I posted on that yesterday. Check it out . . .
yonason Says:
April 22nd, 2007 at 10:14 am
. . . especially the part about how Carter and Brzezinski tried to stage a coup in Iran to help Iraq. It seems those who want to bash Reagan and Bush have conveniently forgotten about that little Causus Belli.
The US supported them with equipment (dual-use helicoptors) at a level of 0.6%, that’s 6 parts in a 1000. NOT very much. … some intel, and other odds and ends. The Soviets came in first at 61%, followed by the French at 18% and by some others with the US WAY down at the bottom.
And if you are talking about Bio stuff, whatever they got was through their universities and was at that time available to just about any academic or medical research facility anywhere. It was NOT directed to go to them by Washington.
And I’m not getting “hysterical.” I was only giving multiple examples to illustrate to you (and others) that Counterpunch has a strong anti-Semitic bias, in case that is important to you. After all, you did say you weren’t that familiar with them. I thought I would help you out with a little of the research I’ve done, and which you and others may not have been able to do yet.
jdledell, excellent post!
The ghost of Tommy returns, will links to WNutD or Steve Sailer be far off?
BY WAY OF EXPLANATION
“What a ridiculous display of rational discourse.” — jdledell Says: April 23rd, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Oh, come on, jdledell, it’s good exercise. You should try it sometime.
“Evil is not as black and white as yonason and MVDG portray.”
Well, actually yes . . . and no.
“Evil exists on a continuum.”
And why did you think I said it didn’t?
I clearly said it appeared that S.C. didn’t think it did. Sure it’s “relative” (just not to a human scale) in that some things are worse than others, and others are worse than those. HOWEVER, when one mixes up the order as S.C. did (note that order IS part and parcel of a “continuum”), then you have chaos and you loose your moral bearings completely.
I was also pointing out how absurdly illogical it would for someone to make arbitrary moral pronouncements.
You are right, most people don’t think that rationally, at least not all the time. BUT by thinking through the matter logically it becomes obvious that someone who calls bad worse and worse better might just have an agenda. And so I gave an example of a scenario that could arise from a likely agenda, i.e., one in which someone might derive benefit by deliberately confusing right and wrong. Then I added parenthetically that it could just be that the person may have had no agenda at all, but merely be confused. Nevertheless, whichever it is, I don’t want to have my thinking guided by either.
Is that any clearer?
jdledell- well said- I tried to make the same point, but you made it better. I am so tired of others who believe only our enemies are capable of evil intent or action. With an attitude like that military aggression is never far behind.
WAS THERE A (GOOD) REASON WHY 3 OF THE LINKS IN MY FIRST POST WERE DELETED?
AND MY LAST FOR THE DAY GOES TO . . .
domajot Says:
“Eerily, commenters like Yonason have reminded me of a young man I knew who fell prey to a religious cult.”
Those who fall victim to cults are those who will uncritically believe whatever they are told by their handlers. If you believe Saddam was a nicer guy than Americans, or at least “no worse,” then your handlers have done their job well.
Rudi- I thought Tommy’s home away from home was LGF,lol.
Counterpunch is definitely left-wing. However, due to their strong anti-war views, their website tends to link to (and be linked to by) anti-war libertarian websites such as antiwar.com and lewrockwell.com. The redeeming thing about Counterpunch is that is an equal-opportunity offender in its criticism of both the Democratic and Republican parties. Counterpunch absolutely savaged Clinton for intervening in Serbia.
However, I have noted columns bordering on anti-semitic over at Counterpunch, which I why I don’t often visit it.
NOTE: Some of these comments got quite personal. When this happens you have people deciding to leave the discussion. I’m not defending Counterpunch, but I know working on several newspapers that there were people on them that detested columnists, writers or even a paper higherups. That did not mean ALL of us and ALL articles were without merit.
For instance, I worked on the San Diego Union which has an editorial page vilified (to this day) by many progressives. But it also has some writers who are NOT in that cookie cutter mode. And every piece done by the more conservative ones cannot be dismissed as a diatribe.
I also think those who suggest Swaraaj is “anti-American” are falling into the trap of defining someone. I lived in India for two years. I knew Swaraaj then when he was a reporter on one of India’s greatest newspapers. He was highly regarded by his colleagues, Americans who knew him and a political science professor who is highly prominent. If you know anything about India, there is a different perception of the United States than Americans have of their own country. I have emailed Swaraaj recently and told him how much I enjoyed his articles which have been ranked very highly on Google News. This comment is not aimed at anyone in particular but I am saying people can and should be able to discuss something without an angry or berating tone creeping into it, and without implying that someone is anti this or that.
I have defended cobloggers repeatedly on this site and I’m doing the same for Swaraaj…not because he is a coblogger but he is one of the FEW people writing on an American blog to offer topics that go beyond the more typical and offer a perspective that is worth considering. The entire world is not Rush Limbaugh and Randhi Rhodes … or Joe Gandelman for that matter.
A FURTHER NOTE: I do note from a few comments that they are HIGHLY personal. I am quite busy these days due to travel, a terminally ill parent and other matters. I did not even see this. I can say that if I had seen one or two of these comments I would have DELETED THEM immediately. PLEASE READ AND FOLLOW THE STATEMENT BELOW WHICH IS THERE TO TRY AND KEEP OUR DISCUSSION ON A HIGHER LEVEL. I especially don’t want comments here that go after a writer personally because someone doesn’t like his take on an issue. There’s plenty to debate on the issues. Swaraaj’s post wasn’t even a long post; it was a pointer post. All of this anger because some people didn’t like the source? I’ve lost readers on this site because I DARED to quote posts that had intriguing ideas that appeared on a certain conservative and a certain liberal website. I have them blogrolled and will indeed link to posts I find interesting. Just re-read this thread. It got very personal.
Mostly one commenter. I’ll never get why people get so offended when they get a perspective from a different source. Swaaraj said that he was unfamiliar with Counterpunch at the outset. If there were assertions in the articles that were not credible why not argue that?