SECTION NINE
EMAIL PAGE FIVE

sm
COLUMN EIGHTY-THREE, JANUARY 15, 2003
(Copyright 2003 The Blacklisted Journalist)

CIA ARMED MUJAHADEEN IN AFGHANISTAN EVEN BEFORE SOVIET INVASION

Subject: It starts here!
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 01:01:31 -0500
From: Gary Stonecipher adhdelivers@netscape.net
Reply-To: Gary@ADHDelivers.com
Organization: A Natural Bohemian Philosopher
To: info@blacklistedjournalist.com  

The story of the US destruction of a soverign nation, starts here!

Centre for Research on Globalisation
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

According to this 1998 interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, the CIA's intervention in Afghanistan preceded the 1979 Soviet invasion. This decision of the Carter Administration in 1979 to intervene and destabilise Afghanistan is the root cause of Afghanistan's destruction as a nation.

M.C.

The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan

Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998 Posted at globalresearch.ca 15 October 2001

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Question: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Question: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Question: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Question: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

Translated from the French by Bill Blum  

The URL of this article is:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html  Copyright, Le Nouvel Observateur and Bill Blum. For fair use only.

Sincerely,  

Gary Stonecipher
311 Second Street
Liverpool, NY  13088-4931
(315) 491- 3119
Gary@ADHDelivers.com
http://ADHDelivers.com  ##

* * *

 ARABS, NOT JEWS, WANT ETHNIC CLEANSIING

Subject: Israel and . . .
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 15:25:11 -0400
From: "Julian Tepper" jutepper@erols.com
To: info@blacklistedjournalist.com

My eldest son, Aryeh (John David) Tepper, a doctoral candidate who lives in Jerusalem, wrote this in response to a message he received concerning some thoughts expressed to him by a close friend of mine (who, now retired, was a civilian strategic analyst at the Pentagon) about the settlements, UN resolution 242 and related matters. I am proud of what John had to say, and thought you might like to see it.
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

John wrote:

I think the most fundamental point here has not been mentioned.

Jews have had a continuing presence - sometimes politically sovereign, sometimes not - in what is called 'the West Bank' for the past three-thousand years; King David, for instance, set up his kingdom in Hevron. In spite of our political exile, there has been a Jewish presence in the 'West Bank' for the past two-thousand years, as well. This is a fact that can be verified by a perusal of any general history of the region. 

In modern times, there was a community in Hevron until 1929, when it was massacred by marauding Arabs.

In light of the above facts, it is self-evidently absurd to call the territories 'occupied' and the Jews living there 'settlers.' To call the Jews living in Hevron 'settlers' or 'occupiers' s, of course, to reward Arab violence. No matter how sympathetic one might be towards Palestinian claims to political sovereignty in the West Bank, intellectual honesty dictates that the most one can say is that the territories are disputed, not occupied, simply.

The sad truth is that the Palestinians apparently feel the need to ethnically cleanse the West Bank of Jews in order to build their state. Why does this go unquestioned?

From the perspective of Jewish nationalism, the idea that Jews can be forbidden from choosing to live in the West Bank is astonishing. Is there anywhere else in the world where it is as fitting and just for Jews to live in than in the West Bank?

From an historical perspective, Jews have more of a right to live in the West Bank than they do in New York City. And if the thought that there are places where one might have 'more' or 'less ' of a right to live in seems illiberal, why is it okay to claim that Jews cannot live in the West Bank?

B'vracha,

John  ##

* * *

NO, WE DON'T REMEMBER THE DATE

Subject: Rainy Day Garden Party
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 19:09:05 -0500
From: "Tyler Thorn" Tyler.Thorn@parks.nyc.gov
To: info@blacklistedjournalist.com

Hi -

I just checked out the "Rainy Day Garden Party" article - which is great.  I am hoping you can tell me the date of the article & the party.  I'm assuming it's 1971 - do you know the actual date, though?  

Thank you,
Tyler Thorn

* * *

PROF SAYS BUSH ISN'T AN IMBECILE BUT A SOCIOPATH

Subject: Fw: Imbecile or Sociopath?
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 13:45:50 -0800
From: allan winans <ad1936@juno.com>
To: info@blacklistedjournalist.com

THIS WAS SENT TO ME AND I THOUGHT I'D PASS IT ON TO A FEW OF YOU.

A.D. WINANS

Have you seen this article from a Toronto paper? [Common Dreams NewsCenter] [Support Common Dreams]

Published on Thursday, November 28, 2002 by the Toronto Star  

Bush Anything But Moronic, According to Author Dark Overtones in His Malapropisms
by Murray Whyte

When Mark Crispin Miller first set out to write Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder, about the ever-growing catalogue of President George W. Bush's verbal gaffes, he meant it for a laugh. But what he came to realize wasn't entirely amusing.

Since the 2000 presidential campaign, Miller has been compiling his own collection of Bush-isms, which have revealed, he says, a disquieting truth about what lurks behind the cock-eyed leer of the leader of the free world. He's not a moron at all " on that point, Miller and Prime Minister Jean Chr'tien agree.

But according to Miller, he's no friend.

"I did initially intend it to be a funny book. But that was before I had a chance to read through all the transcripts," Miller, an American author and a professor of culture and communication at New York University, said recently in Toronto.

"Bush is not an imbecile. He's not a puppet. I think that Bush is a sociopathic personality. I think he's incapable of empathy. He has an inordinate sense of his own entitlement, and he's a very skilled manipulator. And in all the snickering about his alleged idiocy, this is what a lot of people miss."

Miller's judgment, that the president might suffer from a bona fide personality disorder, almost makes one long for the less menacing notion currently making the rounds: that the White House's current occupant is, in fact, simply an idiot.

If only. Miller's rendering of the president is bleaker than that. In studying Bush's various adventures in oration, he started to see a pattern emerging.

"He has no trouble speaking off the cuff when he's speaking punitively, when he's talking about violence, when he's talking about revenge.

"When he struts and thumps his chest, his syntax and grammar are fine," Miller said.

"It's only when he leaps into the wild blue yonder of compassion, or idealism, or altruism, that he makes these hilarious mistakes."

While Miller's book has been praised for its "eloquence" and "playful use of language," it has enraged Bush supporters.

Bush's ascent in the eyes of many Americans " his approval rating hovers at near 80 percent " was the direct result of tough talk following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. In those speeches, Bush stumbled not at all; his language of retribution was clear.

It was a sharp contrast to the pre-9/11 George W. Bush. Even before the Supreme Court in 2001 had to intervene and rule on recounts in Florida after a contentious presidential election, a corps of journalists were salivating at the prospect: a bafflingly inarticulate man in a position of power not seen since vice-president Dan Quayle rode shotgun on George H.W. Bush's one term in office.

But equating Bush's malapropisms with Quayle's inability to spell "potato" is a dangerous assumption, Miller says.

At a public address in Nashville, Tenn., in September, Bush provided one of his most memorable stumbles. Trying to give strength to his case that Saddam Hussein had already deceived the West concerning his store of weapons, Bush was scripted to offer an old saying: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. What came out was the following:

"Fool me once, shame ... shame on ... you." Long, uncomfortable pause. "Fool me " can't get fooled again!"

Played for laughs everywhere, Miller saw a darkness underlying the gaffe.

"There's an episode of Happy Days, where The Fonz has to say, `I'm sorry' and can't do it. Same thing," Miller said.

"What's revealing about this is that Bush could not say, `Shame on me' to save his life. That's a completely alien idea to him. This is a guy who is absolutely proud of his own inflexibility and rectitude."

If what Miller says is true " and it would take more than just observations to prove it " then Bush has achieved an astounding goal.

By stumbling blithely along, he has been able to push his image as "just folks" " a normal guy who screws up just like the rest of us.

This, in fact, is a central cog in his image-making machine, Miller says: Portraying the wealthy scion of one of America's most powerful families as a regular, imperfect Joe.

But the depiction, Miller says, is also remarkable for what it hides " imperfect, yes, but also detached, wealthy and unable to identify with the "folks" he's been designed to appeal to.

An example, Miller says, surfaced early in his presidential tenure.

"I know how hard it is to put food on your family," Bush was quoted as saying.

"That wasn't because he's so stupid that he doesn't know how to say, `Put food on your family's table' " it's because he doesn't care about people who can't put food on the table," Miller says.

So, when Bush is envisioning "a foreign-handed foreign policy," or observes on some point that "it's not the way that America is all about," Miller contends it's because he can't keep his focus on things that mean nothing to him.

"When he tries to talk about what this country stands for, or about democracy, he can't do it," he said.

This, then, is why he's so closely watched by his handlers, Miller says " not because he'll say something stupid, but because he'll overindulge in the language of violence and punishment at which he excels.

"He's a very angry guy, a hostile guy. He's much like Nixon. So they're very, very careful to choreograph every move he makes. They don't want him anywhere near protestors, because he would lose his temper."

Miller, without question, is a man with a mission " and laughter isn't it.

"I call him the feel bad president, because he's all about punishment and death," he said. "It would be a grave mistake to just play him for laughs."

Copyright 1996-2002. Toronto Star Newspapers Limited  ##

* * *

CLICK HERE TO GET TO INDEX OF COLUMN EIGHTY-THREE


CLICK HERE TO GET TO INDEX OF COLUMNS

The Blacklisted Journalist can be contacted at P.O.Box 964, Elizabeth, NJ 07208-0964
The Blacklisted Journalist's E-Mail Address:
info@blacklistedjournalist.com
 
 

THE BLACKLISTED JOURNALIST IS A SERVICE MARK OF AL ARONOWITZ