Tag Archives: CIA


News agencies and writers should stop referring to ISIS and any of the other groups as “terrorists.” The term “terrorists” connotes an independence that the “terrorists” do not have. These so-called “terrorists” are organized, financed, and armed by Washington and Washington’s vassals. Washington uses “terrorists” as a foreign policy tool. This has been going on for decades.    Dr. Paul Craig ROBERTS

18117The US-Senate Investigation into the CIA’s revolting operations to „detain“ and intensively „interrogate“ (post 9-11) terror-suspects had one major (unsurprising) finding:

The CIA has lied systematically in order to shield themselves from any public scrutiny or „oversight“.

Unfortunately the Senators do not use the word „lie“ at all. They call it „repeatedly providing inaccurate information“ in order to make it sound less illegal and immoral. To see for yourself, check-out Appendix 3 >page 462 and take a look at what Senator Udall added to the report:

538 SenUdall on CIA duplicity

In Part II of the (Senate Select Committee on Intelligence) Report on Torture („Overall history and operation of the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation program“- see page 11) we learn that 8 days after 9-11 the CIA was awarded exceptional powers by President Bush that turned them almost into a modern version of the RSHA in Nazi Germany.

p11 senate torture report

„These unprecedented authorities“ granted to the CIA in reality meant that the „RULE OF LAW“ (of a civilized society) was in effect SUSPENDED and that the „company“ became the embodiment of Kafka’s and Orwell’s sinister „anonymous bureaucracy“, a governmental Leviathan hiding behind secrecy with unlimited power and no accountability. So the CIA – in the context of the phony „war on terror“

  • determines WHO will be detained, WHY and for HOW LONG (including „for the rest of his life“),
  • feeds information to the politicians in Washington in order to approve the torture-techniques they present as „necessary“ to prevent further attacks

(The „military-tribunals“ that substitute for due process are a complete FARCE and mockery of justice as we shall see later in the Zubaydah case)

All of this goes well beyond the legal mandate of an „agency“ whose original purpose was to „co-ordinate intelligence“ but as President Truman pointed out in the Washington Post just four weeks after the ASSASSINATION of President Kennedy (1963):

I think it has become necessary to take another look at the purpose and operations of our Central Intelligence Agency—CIA. For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government.[…] I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations. Some of the complications and embarrassment I think we have experienced are in part attributable to the fact that this quiet intelligence arm of the President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue … [not really a matter of „interpretation“…]

But there are now some searching questions that need to be answered. I, therefore, would like to see the CIA be restored to its original assignment as the intelligence arm of the President, and that whatever else it can properly perform in that special field—and that its operational duties be terminated or properly used elsewhere. […]  There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic position and I feel that we need to correct it.“

Sadly for all of us and especially for those unfortunate „detainees“ who are rotting in secret prisons, the Guantanamo Gulag or floating prisons (US-Navy-ships – a „brilliant“ Rumsfeld idea) Truman’s words fell on deaf ears.

The CIA has become a state within a state, a psychopathic, self-righteous, narcissistic monster, ostensibly in the service of „national security“ but what they are really protecting are the profits and political power of the „1%“ (the oligarchic, rich families of the US), not to forget their OWN political power.


So if I can „determine“ (CLAIM, DECLARE not PROVE) that you are such a „serious threat“ (accusations based on suspicion and false „intel“) you lose all your rights and there is nothing you can do about it. I can kidnap you, throw you into a dungeon, torture you, drive you (literally) crazy and if you succumb in the end to the inhumane, degrading treatment (mostly mental torture) – so what? Call it a „suicide“.

The psychopaths at the CIA „counter-terrorism“ unit made it clear that the most important issue for them was to „cover their asses“ so before they started the most horrible torture sessions on Abu Zubaydah they agreed that it would be necessary to “detain” him in total isolation „FOR THE REMAINDER OF HIS LIFE“. (If he died under the nightmarish conditions, he would be cremated to prevent an independent autopsy).

35 Zubaydah forever imprisoned

The irony here is, that a lot of the CIA‘s „covert-actions“ perfectly fit the definition of „persons who pose a continuing, serious threat of violence or death (to persons in other countries) or who are planning terrorist activities“ (disguised as „counter-terrorism“ or support for „freedom-fighters“). Yet this collection of psychopaths decides who is a „threat“ and then strip the people assigned to this category of their humanity and civil rights. All in the name of defending „American values“.

The unbearable thing is that they always get away with this systematic deception and organized cruelty. After the „Torture Report“ was published (heavily redacted), NOBODY from the CIA (or the „government“) was held accountable for the crimes against humanity they committed. The fate of „Abu Zubaydah“ is a chilling example how this Orwellian system is being administered and shielded against public scrutiny, let alone congressional „oversight“.


Abu Zubaydah in KSAWe shall take a closer look at this man called ABU ZUBAYDAH in Part 3. Born in 1971, he was raised in Saudi Arabia in a family of Palestinian refugees and then went to college in India to study computer-science. Although he was not religious at all, „someone“ lured him into joining the „jihad“ in Afghanistan in 1991 (after the collapse of the USSR and their defeat by the US-supported Jihadi-proxies in Afghanistan).

On March 28, 2002 Zubaydah was captured during a nightly raid in the Pakistani city of Faisalabad. He was shot three times, (thigh, testicle and stomach) taken to a military hospital and received extensive medical treatment  so they could later „interrogate“ (torture) him in 3 secret dungeons in different countries. In 2006 he was transported to the military gulag in Guantanamo where he still is.

All the CIA-claims about Zubaydah being the „No.3 of Al Qaeda“, „Bin Laden’s lieutenant“, one of the 9-11 „masterminds“, etc. ARE FALSE as the USG has admitted in the meantime (more on this in Part 3 and see below).

In December 2007 John Kiriakou, a former CIA-Counter-Terrorism officer, made headlines when he admitted in several TV-interviews that Abu Zubaydah had been sucessfully „waterboarded“. After only one application „for 35 seconds“ the „detainee“ gave them „actionable intelligence“ so the torture was presented as „effective“ and „necessary“.

Later it turned out that Kiriakou was not telling the truth but for a long time his claims were repeated and amplified in the media (the usual „echo-chamber“ to manipulate public opinion).

As one observant blogger commented in his scathing critique on the Kiriakou „PSYOP“:

The fact that at a crucial moment in our recent history, the moment when our collective moral compass was to be set one way or the other, this guy came forward and lied through his teeth to the advantage of the CIA and torture in general, seems to be lost on Code Pink and other related “lefties” out there.“

When his first book came out in 2010, Kiriakou told a very different story and „now rather off handedly admits that he basically made it all up“ wrote Jeff Stein in a Foreign Policy article.

FP CIA man retracts claims waterboarding

He presented himself as a victim of CIA-duplicity implying that his „agency“ had fed him false information. A CIA spokesman responded by saying „He apparently didn’t know as much as he thought he did“.

We may conclude that this is all just theater to „manage perceptions“.

Kiriakou was not just some well-meaning, low-level analyst, he was chief of a counter-terrorism (read: US state terrorism) unit and „still loves the CIA“ (statement in 2007 after the torture was revealed – see also the 2006 report of the ICRC). So his credibility and moral judgement seem heavily compromised. I think he knew very well what they did to Abu Zubaydah and – to this day – he always says „we“ when he describes the torture-techniques.

His „media-blitz“ was a calculated effort by the CIA to manipulate public sentiment and collective moral judgement about the „water-boarding“ revelations. This manipulation reached its peak (in my opinion) when Kiriakou was later sentenced to 30 months in prison and presented to the world as a brave „whistleblower“. I may be wrong but I think this was all one big PSYOP:

A „counter-terrorism“ officer who received a dozen awards from the CIA for „excellent performance“ suddenly has second thoughts and becomes a „martyr“ for truth and justice? I just don’t buy it …


Kiriakou screenshot infowarsIn a recent interview John Kiriakou said about the torture of Abu Zubaydah:

We did worse things than waterboarding. He was put in a „Cold Cell“ (chained naked to a wall, every hour a bucket of ice-water was thrown at him; we actually killed prisoners with that method. He was not allowed to sleep for as long as 7 days (people begin losing their minds on day 7, dying on day 9). He had a terrible fear of insects so we put him in a dog-cage for  2 weeks and dumped a box of cockroaches on him …just to make him crazy“.

It should be obvious from these statements that „getting accurate information“ was NOT the goal of this (mainly) mental torture program.

Sleep- and sensory deprivation, putting a man in a box (smaller than a coffin) in a cramped position for hours, keeping him totally isolated for days, hanging him from a ceiling, dressed only in diapers and forcing him to urinate and defecate on himself, throwing ice-cold water at his naked, already shivering body, etc. is not a good basis for getting the truth out of somebody.

WHY? Not only for obvious reasons (the prisoners will say anything to make the torture stop) but because it actually impairs the functioning of the brain. As the CIA knows perfectly well, sensory and sleep-deprivation (alone) cause hallucinations and delusions so anything a prisoner would say after such an ordeal has no real value (and would never be admitted in a court)

“Studies of sensory deprivation and sleep deprivation induced a psychosis, in which people lost control of what they said and what they thought.” 

Psychologist Steven Reisner quoted in the NYT, Dec. 10, 2014

Even if one argued that this cruel and degrading treatment will „break his will“ (assuming he actually was withholding important information), after a 24/7 nightmare like this (for 2 weeks or more) the „detainee“ is not able to utter coherent thoughts anymore.  He will be reduced to what psychologists call a state of „regression“. (mental capacity like a toddler or even like an obedient dog). The  CIA-declared „enemy-combatants“ were tortured on a similar basis, a theory called „learned helplessness“. Again a paragraph from the same NYT-article is very revealing:

Severe stress disrupts people’s thinking, and fast. Dr. Morgan recently studied American troops’ levels of compliance and suggestibility after the Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) course, a training exercise that includes what he calls a “mini-exposure” to many of the interrogation techniques the C.I.A. was using, including confinement and sleep deprivation. The result: a subset became more compliant, but the vast majority also became more suggestible when given misinformation. “Essentially you’re making people less reliable and more stupid,” he said. “You can see the problem.”

Now we are getting to the point:

The CIA has known this „problem“ all along: (they did not spend millions of dollars on their revolting „Mind-Control“ programs for nothing) greater suggestibility and susceptibility to hypnosis, making people „LOSING CONTROL OF WHAT THEY THINK“, what they ARE (creating multiple personalities through severe trauma), even turning some of them into programmable killers (see the fate of „Sirhan Sirhan“ and the assassination of Robert Kennedy)

As the Senate report rightly concludes – these brutal techniques DID NOT RESULT IN ANY USEFUL INFORMATION (in the sense that planned attacks could be prevented, as the CIA repeatedly claimed).

So WHY would they do it anyway?

Because the purpose of the torture was NOT to elicit information (true statements) from the prisoners but (in addition to using some of them as scientific guinea-pigs) to PLANT false identities into their tortured, regressed minds. In other words: control WHAT THEY THINK, WHAT THEY SAY (in reaction to a certain „trigger“) and in the end, CONTROL THEIR BEHAVIOUR.

WHY would the CIA want to do that?

Because the whole 9-11 fairy-tale (WHO did it and WHY) would fall apart if these men were tried in a civil court with full legal representation and due process.

People who are still able to THINK FOR THEMSELVES MUST KNOW that the official „conspiracy theory“ (19 fanatical Arabic „hijackers“ armed with box-cutters outwitted the multi-billion dollar military/security/intel-apparatus of the mighty US) is SIMPLY RIDICULOUS. (This kind of „operation“ is impossible without the support of a state / intelligence apparatus).


911reportIt is an artificial „master-narrative“, a „deep-seated frame“ that MUST NOT be questioned therefore all critical minds are denounced as „crazy“ conspiracy-theorists. But this cheap name-calling justs serves to shift attention from the content (the valid arguments of the critic) to the personality of the critic, it is an ad hominem attack not honest analysis. The stigmatizingeffect ensures that the audience wants to distance themselves from „such a person“ so they stick to the official version no matter how absurd it is.

Hundreds of investigations by serious scholars, architects, pilots, etc. have shown that in order to give credence to the „airplane impact caused tower-collapse“ myth, the laws of physics must be suspended (to say nothing of the „plane-attack on the Pentagon“ which Barbara Honegger has brilliantly exposed as a Big Lie).

For those who are more interested in the „Rule of Law“ (coupled with democratic control), which supposedly distinguishes the US and the Western countries from many „less-developed“ ones, the case of Abu Zubaydah is essential to understanding what the „war on terror“ really means:

HRW US torture

A descent into the „Fourth Reich“ where horrific state-crimes become „legal“ and „necessary“ to fight „enemies of the state“. 

Everything the Nazis did in Germany was „legal“ because under „emergency laws“ the police-state and a concentration of power (secret police, para-military units, intelligence fused together in the RSHA) became the new normal …


In another interview Kiriakou recently said „We (the CIA) made an ASSUMPTION (about Abu Zubaydah) that turned out to be wrong“.

Well, first of all „an assumption“ should not form the basis for stripping someone of their civil and human rights as the status of „enemy-combatant“ (EC) surely does. (As mentioned before, this „assumption“ becomes de facto a moral and legal judgement: what needs to be proven in a court, is accepted A PRIORI AS THE PREMISE for declaring someone an EC.

the-convenient-terroristThe purpose of this interview was to publicize a new book „THE CONVENIENT TERRORIST“ written by Kiriakou and John Hickmann (a former security-guard at Guantanamo).

(abbreviations used: > AZ= Abu Zubaydah; OBL = Osama Bin Laden; AQ = Al Qaeda, USG = US government)

The host (David Knight) asks John Kiriakou a very important question at the beginning:

Why the focus on this particular individual [Zubaydah] by the US-government?


Well, we „believed“ at the CIA back in 2002/3 that AZ was the No.3 of AQ. Cheney echoed that in the press, he said AZ was one of the masterminds of 9-11 so we pulled out all the stops to track him down“.

Funny, I thought the CIA’s major job was to gather real, „actionable intelligence“ (FACTS) and analyze it to prevent terrorist-attacks but instead they acted on what they „believed“ to be true. This could be a euphemism for guessing or lying ( I opt for the latter …)

  • WHO told Cheney what he „echoed“ in the media?
  • WHAT was the FACTUAL BASIS for this „belief“?

Kiriakou does not really answer the question but then he says they found AZ in Pakistan and

„…when all was said and done, it turned out that he was not the No. 3“, in fact HE HAD NEVER JOINED AQ, he had never pledged GUILTY to OBL (Freudian slip! He meant: never pledged allegiance to OBL), so we had this guy in our custody, he was certainly a bad guy, he acted as a logistician for AQ, he ran the training camps for AQ, he ran the „House of Martyrs“ (a safe-house) in Peshawar …for AQ, but he was NOT an AQ „mastermind and certainly not an AQ-leader“.

He later adds

„He (AZ) simply did not have the information!“ (enabling them to capture other „high-level“ AQ leaders), he was „someone who meant us harm, to recruit jihadis to fight against the US“ but he was NOT one of the masterminds of 911 …as the CIA wanted us to believe…“

(he talks about the CIA as if  he never joined their „counter-terrorist“ unit )

So let us summarize the key points Kiriakou made: Abu Zubaydah

  • „ran the training-camps for AQ“
  • acted as a „logistician“ for AQ (as a „travel-agent“for Jihad-fighters coming to Afghan training-camps)
  • ran a „guest-house“ for AQ (safe-house in CIA parlance) in Pakistan for foreign fighters (during the 1990s)

What does John Hickmann have to say about AZ?

  • The USG is still claiming, he is AQ, but this is NOT TRUE
  • He was NOT AFFILIATED AT ALL with AQ (his conclusion after doing the research on AZ) but then he states
  • AQ members did go through his training-camp (?)
  • We were chasing these guys (looking for AQ-operatives) with the mentality of the American mafia …“

The host then sums it up, saying „he was A LOW-LEVEL TERRORIST“ and Kiriakou enthusiastically responds with

„THAT’S ABSOLUTELY TRUE ….and, and that’s the specific reason why the CIA began its torture program(although the FBI-interrogator had established a good „rapport“ with him) They started to torture him mercilessly …and to what end? He never gave us anything else of any value once the torture began.

(Just a reminder : the prohibition against torture is ABSOLUTE.)

Now a rhetoric „specialty“ of Kiriakou is to utter misleading statements that are not completely false but by leaving out the appropriate political context their meaning becomes distorted. Here is an example:

As mentioned above he describes AZ as (though not a member of AQ) „someone who meant us harm, to recruit jihadis to fight against the US“.

This suggests that he was indeed a „threat“ to the US (its „security“ but the geopolitical context is conveniently omitted because it leads to a very different conclusion (moral judgement):


ghost warsYes, Zubaydah organized the travel of would-be „Jihadis“ to Afghanistan and sent (not all of) them to Khaldan training-camp. But as he explicitly states in his testimony, this was during the 1990s and the „Jihad“ they conducted was – from their viewpoint – purely DEFENSIVE: they fought against FOREIGN INVADERS in Muslim countries („the enemies of God“, which was their religious „duty“, they were told): first in Afghanistan against the USSR (as the CIA-ISI-supported „Mujahedeen“ in the 1980s), then fighters were sent to Chechnya (again against Russians to drag Putin into a quagmire), to Bosnia (against the (Christian) Serbs to destroy Yugoslavia, to the Philippines, etc.

The irony is of course, that they (most of them) never figured out, HOW THE US HAS BEEN USING THEM as indoctrinated, convenient proxies for its Machiavallian agenda, so that the US-organized violence against a foreign country could be passed off as a „civil war“, a „struggle for freedom“ an „uprising against an evil dictator“, (Putin, Milosevic, and later Assad) you get the drift.

After 9-11, „the US-military relentlessly bombed Afghanistan (killing thousands of civilians) thus they became the new „invaders“ and occupiers. But even then, armed resistance against foreign military aggression (with or without religious overtones) IS NOT UNLAWFUL (at least not for the Afghans). On the contrary, it was – and stil is – the US whose barbaric „hostilities“ in Afghanistan represent a „continuing, serious threat of violence or death“ to the Afghan people (> increasing drone killings).

Of course one can argue that Muslim foreign fighters have no right to use violence in Afghanistan or any other state since it is not THEIR country.

But „the elephant in the room“ is that it was the US (coordinating with Saudi and Pakistani intelligence) WHO CREATED THEM in the first place as proxy-fighters against the USSR (already in the 1970s to lure „the Russians into a trap“ as Brzezinsky admitted) and later USED THEM (in a more radical, fanatical form > Al Nusra, IS) as „mobile terrorist elements“ in Libya, Iraq and Syria (list incomplete).

A brilliant analysis of this strategy and a debunking of the „blowback“ theory can be found here: (by Nafeez Ahmed)

So Kiriakou’s statements puts reality upside down: it is the US – and especially the CIA – WHO IS THE THREAT TO THE SECURITY of other nations, and they created these „Jihadi fighters“ for two purposes:

  • as proxies (political tools) to fight dirty wars for them and (in a later stage)
  • as a pretext to have to „intervene“ militarily in certain countries (now clearly visible in Syria…)

Kiriakou’s moral highground here rests on the assumption that US-violence is always „good“ because they use it against „bad guys“. This is either ridiculously naive or deliberately misleading.

Joe Hickmann (co-author of „A Convenient Terrorist“) says about Abu Zubaydah in an interview on RT:

 „He DID NOT run the Khaldan camp“. It was Abdul Rassul Sayef, an Afghan „warlord“ who also ran two other military camps.

So what is the big deal?


Sayef has worked FOR THE CIA since 1973 [preparing „jihad“ against the USSR] and is now a high-ranking member of the Afghan parliamentSo AZ was actually with a group that was heavily funded  by the USG and … the CIA. But they don’t want you to know that …“ (You bet).

So by now it should be clear that the CIA fabricated the whole narrative of the monstrous „Al Qaeda“ as the organizer of 9-11 in order to „cover their ass“.

911 good for Israel(Israel’s role in this impressive political farce and crime of the century surely needs to be investigated…)

The whole „war-on-terror“-show falls apart when the master-narrative is revealed as false:

  • AQ is NOT responsible for 9-11 (there is not a single shred of evidence for the allegation that would stand-up in a regular court)
  • AQ (meaning the „base“ in Arabic) was originally a database of „Jihadi“-fighters created by  OBL and later became the PR-name for the fabricated „Big Threat“ of Islamic extremism; this became nessesary after the demise of the USSR when a new „enemy“ had to be invented to justify the gargantuan US „defense-budget“ and the constant „intervention“ in other (preferably oil and gas-rich) countries who also happened to be adversaries of Israel
  • OBL was originally a CIA-asset
  • Organized „Islamic terrorism“ (as in „ISIS“) is just a new version of the „death squads“ they created in Latin America

The whole „war on terror“ theater is the biggest PSYOP since the Gulf of Tonkin ….

statlibtortureAs the Senate report clearly shows, the CIA has been lying systematically about their „high-value targets“ and everything they say about AQ is highly questionable since it is THEY WHO NEED THE AQ-MYTH to deflect attention from their own likely involvement in 9-11 and other „false-flags“ (terror-attacks). People like Abu Zubaydah are turned into Pawlovian dogs (through mental torture and physcial abuse) to hide the unspeakable crimes the CIA has committed.

They are not fighting „terrorists“. They ARE the TERROR.   

“No one can be called a good man who, in order to support himself, takes up a profession that obliges him at all times to be rapacious, fraudulent, and cruel, as of course must be all of those no matter what their rank, who make a trade of war.”

Niccolo Machiavelli, The Art of War



Important Links:


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized


A couple of days ago I was listening (online) to a radio-program called „Loud & Clear“ (L&C) which is being aired five days a week by Radio Sputnik. Presented by Brian Becker, the show provides critical analysis and political context about topics in the „news“.

As far as I can tell, this was probably the WORST L&C- Show EVER. Before we look at the content, it is important to point out that a change has recently occured at L&C:

John Kiriakou DNOn the 9-11 anniversary show we learned that from now on JOHN KIRIAKOU would act as co-host to Brian Becker. I was dismayed to hear that because a former CIA „counter-terrorism“ officer is hardly suited for the task of honestly analyzing US policies, let alone for co-hosting a show which in general is highly critical of US foreign policy and the USG.

What on earth made Radio Sputnik think this would be a good idea?

It is actually a very bad idea. First of all, Brian Becker does not need a „co-host“, he is a very charismatic person, a good journalist and also an acitivist for social justice and against US-imperialism in the „ANSWER“ coalition.

Kiriakou of course is supposedly another one of those rare, brave „whistleblowers“ (like Snowdon or Manning) who had the courage to „spill the beans“ about the dirty deeds of the organisation they worked for. At great personal expense they revealed immoral acts and brutal crimes and as a result of informing the public about „state secrets“ ended up in prison (or exile in the case of Snowdon;)

After listening to the show it is hard to believe that Kiriakou deserves the same respect as Snowdon or Manning.

Yes, he spent 22 months in prison and yes he „revealed“ that the CIA actually does torture „terror-suspects“ but that does not make him a hero for truth and justice. On the contrary: a closer look at his behaviour leads to a very different conclusion. (More on Kiriakou’s deceptions and „information operations“ in Part 2)


Kiriakou initially approved of the „waterboarding“ of terror-suspects because in his words „it was worth it“. He told ABC-reporter Brian Ross that after only one application (lasting „35 seconds“ as he claimed) it succeeded in eliciting „actionable intelligence“ for the CIA (from an alleged „Al Qaeda lieutenant“, Abu Zubeida)

The message was that torture is awful, „un-American“ but sometimes „necessary to protect the nation“ (The Nazis could not have said it any better…) and that after all  „it works“.

All his claims were later revealed to be false.  Kevin Ryan did some excellent research on the Big Lie about Abu Zubeida who had NOTHING to do with Al Qaeda or 9-11 but (14 yrs later) is still „detained“ in Guantanamo. (Kiriakou changed his story later in his book, on the second to last page…);

Has anyone ever asked him WHY je joined the CIA?

MLK called the US-government in 1967 (Beyond Vietnam Speech) „the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today“. This statement is STILL VALID and the CIA is the most ruthless government „organizer“ for that violence.

In contrast to Ray McGovern, Kiriakou was not just an „analyst“ sitting at a desk, he was actively involved in covert operations in the context of „counter-terrorism“ which means – stripped of its Orwellian cover – he committed or organized despicable crimes in foreign countries but his conscience could conveniently hide behind the self-serving, phony „legality“ of NSC 5412 and other such „national-security“ legislation which makes a mockery of the „rule of law“.

(Everything the Nazis did in Germany was also „legal“, and what they did abroad was „necessary“ from their perspective of becoming a dominant power in Europe. Sound familiar?)

Loftus Nazi SecretThousands of fascist war-criminals from Germany and Eastern Europe were brought to the US after 1945 at the behest of Allen Dulles and integrated into the „national-security“ state.  (Ironically, „NS“ stands for „national security“ in America but for „National-Socialism“ / Nazism in Europe)

The „Cold War“ context cannot justify this severe obstruction of justice and, given all the other documented collaboration between Fascists and the CIA, one can only reach a terrible conclusion: The CIA is – behind the „security“-facade – a quasi-fascist organisation.


As the 9-11 anniversary show already made clear (to an informed audience), as soon as the deploreable, double-dealing actions of the CIA become a topic in the show, Kiriakou’s „contribution“ gives the impression that he is either extremely naive, „in denial“ or deliberately trying to hide inconvenient facts from the audience.

„There was US-support for Al Qaeda before and after 9/11“

(Historian Peter Kuznick on L&C, September 12 )

So Kiriakous statement (in the same show) that „The original idea in Afghanistan was to crush Al Qaeda“ is ridiculous and obviously false because – as Peter Kuznick pointed out – IT WAS THE CIA (together with Saudi and Pakistani intelligence) who deliberately „fanned the flames“ of Islamic extremism.

Some years ago we watched Robert BAER (fmr.CIA-officer) on TV saying: „WE CREATED THEM.“ The cold-blooded Brzezinsky boasted in an interview that it had been his idea to use these „stirred-up Muslims“ to lure the USSR in Afghanistan into a trap und „give them their Vietnam“. Even Robert Gates admitted it in his memoirs.

FACT: THE CIA has used the religious indoctrination and radicalization of Muslims AS A POLITICAL WEAPON in order to fabricate a proxy-force against the Soviet Union (later to be re-named and used as „mobile fighting elements“ in Yugoslavia, Libya,other African countries, Iraq, Syria, etc.).

The CIA created the „Taliban“, „Al Qaeda“, etc. but Kiriakou cannot admit that because then the whole 9-11 PSYOP and „War on Terror“ BS falls apart.

But let us take a look at what happened in the show on September 16, 2017: The topic was „With Daesh in retreat what will become of Iraq? (hosted by Walter Smolarek and Kiriakou):

The guest Dr. Dahlia Wasfi (DW) at the beginning points out (among other things) that

  • the occupation is ongoing, though in a different form“
  • „Iraq remains very devided and very unstable and will continue along that road because it serves the agenda of Western imperialism to remain so“
  • Elections in Iraq „were orchestrated by the US-administration, Iraqis have not had free and fair elections for decades.. the Iraqi people do not really have a voice … “

SMO then asks: The US military is still (14 yrs after the „shock & awe invasion“) in Iraq, why?

DW: Because we don’t want to (laughs) …. to destroy Iraq has been on the agenda for some time …maybe Mr. Kiriakou has some inside information since he was working with the CIA from 1990 on…“

Kiriakou, unsurprisingly, prefers to remain silent on the subject.


Dr. Wasfi then talks about how the Iraqi civilian population was targeted in the first Gulf War (1991), that water-sewage-treatment plants were bombed deliberately, that the (pre-war excellent) health-care sytem in Iraq was devastated through the 13 yrs of „sanctions“ and that about 1,2-1,8 mio. people died as a consequence.

child-victim-of-us-sanctions-in-iraqWe remember that two UN-officials (Hans von Sponeck and Dennis Halliday) resigned in protest to this US-engineered barbarity (about 5000 children under five were dying every month from water-borne diseases, denied access to water purification chemicals and denied medicine,  half a million kids in all; The 1995 FAO survey in Baghdad showed a 300%  increase in deaths of under-fives from diarrhoeal diseases. Nearly 1 million children (a rise of 72% since 1991)  were chronically malnourished in 1997 according to UNICEF;

Dr. Wasfi also mentiones the false claims about Iraq’s involvement in 9-11 which (my comment) was cynically used to hoodwink thousands of naive US-soldiers and new recruits into believing they were fighting a „just“ (defensive) war in Iraq. She also talks about the control of oil (Saddam, although a brutal dictator, had nationalized oil production and invested considerable sums into infrastructure, health care and education).

Smolarek then asks Dr. Wasfi to talk about the difference between PM Haider Abadi and (the former PM) Maliki in the context of elections. But (rightly) she has another axe to grind with the media coverage of the violence in Iraq:

A conversation about elections and who is ruling Iraq now is to normalize atrocity“ she says and is referring to the the „wholesale destruction & massacre in Mosul“ (carried out by the „US-coalition“) under the pretext to „retake“ the city from IS (their Frankenstein, faux Islamist, drugged proxy-force for „remaking“ the Middle East through terror)

Mosul devastation 2017She tells us that „images from the Western part of Mosul are  horrific, the city is mostly reduced to rubble, looks like the aftermath of an Israeli assault on Gaza.. thousands of corpses remain rotting in the streets, this is an enormous public health-issue…“ (see also RT reports where the journalist in Mosul can hardly bear the stink of rotten flesh)

Dr. Wasfi claims that „it was in effect done to „change demographics on the ground“ (as in Syria) to continue Western hegemony in the region…“ what’s happening in the Green Zone is not so important …(compared to the suffering of the population)

Kiriakou does not respond to the implied and obvious guilt of the US government for these crimes against humanity but wants to talk „about the demographics you mentioned“.He prefers to stick to his script and talk about the“ imminent non-binding referendum on Kurdish „independence“ in Northern Iraq, mentioning that the constitution gives the Kurds the right to vote and „to express their opinion“.


To his question „Is an independent Iraqi Kurdistan possible?“ Dr. Wasfi replies:

„Yes, certainly … since you mentioned the Iraqi constitution, … the document was actually written in English by the US-occupiers, then translated into Arabic … a process orchestrated by the US-occupation … if the Kurds choose to secede, it’s up to the people in the region …

Kiriakou (JK): …“but not necessarily,  it is more of a statement of desire than it is a break-off from the Iraqi state

Well he has to say that in order to dodge the thought why the Kurds have been encouraged by the US to secede and the whole charade is portrayed by him as „a desire for independence“ while in Crimea a similar „desire“ (to be independent of the US-supported fascist, corrupt, illegal government in Kiev and rather „come home to Mother Russia“, expressed by about 90% in a referendum) served as a phony casus belli (for severe sanctions) against Crimea and Russia (and as „dual use“ for sabotaging economic relations between the EU and Russia.)

If Kiriakou had any interest in revealing the real geopolitical motives at play here, he would put the Kurdish „independence“ scam into a different political context but instead this task falls to Dr. Wasfi as she explains to the audience:

„Barzani has been involved in that issue for 40 yrs, this goes back to Kissinger’s involvement, using the Kurds as a 5th column against the government in Baghdad and manipulating the Kurds at their own expense and that of all Iraqis and others in the region; the US-empire is also managing the interests of Turkey, Syria and Iran and none of those countries (govts) want to see an independent Kurdistan.”

Smolarek then returns to the question of sectarianism, noting that it was purposefully inflamed but not naming the culprits:

„Iraq is often presented in the corporate Media as being permanently divided into hostile camps…but sectarianism was inflamed by a number of … purposeful decisions, policy-decisions …  so tell us, how sectariansim developed. (was not … an essential part of Iraqi society)

DW: „In Iraq this was not a predodminant aspect of civil society because historically and currently Iraqis are predominantly a secular people and even the term of „mixed-sect-marriage“ (betwenn Sunni and Shia) did only emerge after 2003 l) […]. After 2003 this was really highlighted …

Dr. Wasfi then points out that the „Iraqi governing“ body was handpicked by the US administration and the Iraqi army was being divided in different units, Sunni and Shia, trained separately;  then came John Negroponte and Col. James Steel (two real psychopaths) and this was the orchestration of these Shia death-squads that were brought into Iraq and trained (analogy >„Salvador Option“ in Latin America) to terrorize the population; there is a very good documentary about Steele. This is where the sectarian bloodletting came from …“

Salvador OptionDW: The resistance against US occupation was strong so they used the classic divide & conquer strategy (turn them against each other): this was also employed by the British when they pieced together the 3 Ottoman viliyats (Basra, Bagdad, Kirkuk) to create the new state (hoping the energy would be spent on fighting each other not the imposed political system so the British could rule with greater ease […reference to ancient culture of Mesopotamia].


One could be excused for expecting that the mentioning of Iraqi „deaths squads“ trained by US officers (eerily echoing the US-orchestrated massacres in El Salvador under Reagan, whose election victory reputedly caused champagne-celebrations within the CIA) would at least cause some emotional response in studio but nobody reacts to it.

(SMO then introduces Eugene Puryear, host of another Sputnik radio show, we’ll skip his comments here and focus on the exchange of words between Kiriakou and Dr. Wasfi)

SMO returns to the Kurdish referendum topic and points out that a crisis will be inevitable because obviously the parliament in Baghdad is against the secession of the Kurds and considers the whole concept illegal (again the „Crimea-conflict“ comes to mind: the US-pretext for the economic warfare against Putin was that by re-integrating Crimea into Russia he „violated the territorial integrity“ of Ukraine. So why doesn’t Kiriakou touch on that subject? (rhetorical question…)

SMO then asks Kiriakou about his thoughts on the subject:

His first sentence „This is a very important point“ by now sounds like a broken record but then he tries to change the (right) perception (implied by Dr. Wasfi) that sectarianism in Iraq was engineered by the US:

„I think sectarianism will continue to be a problem in Iraq, IT’S THE NATURE OF MODERN IRAQ and this is not just since the US-invasion. It certainly was under Saddam H. as well… we remember what happened to Shia in the south, the swamps were drained, people lost their livelihoods, forced to move to other parts …Kurds were oppressed, they were gassed … so it looks like politically Iraq has turned a corner with our without the US …. (23:13) „.. sectarianism will continue to be a problem for the country, a thorn in the side of its political system and I think that we’re underestimating the impact of this Kurdish referendum as well. It’s going to pass overwhelmingly and other Kurds are going to take their cue from it; Iraqi Kurds are very serious about their independence, .. at least some real form of autonomy, they’ve been denied that for generations; remember M. Barzani was born in an independent Kurdistan in 1946, a very short-lived country; …he wants future generations of Kurds to be born in an independent Kurdistan.

So I think that, … I fear that violence is in the offing because both sides have positions that are essentially intractable.“


At this point I could feel my blood-pressure and adrenalin-level rising …

A former CIA-„counter-terrorism“ (read: legalized US-terrorism) officer (under Bush, the dumb one – whose Zionist „advisors“ planned the destruction of the last 3 remaining independent states in the Middle East (Iraq, Syria and Iran) whose „agency“

  • has perfected the fabrication of phony „Islamic extremists“ as a political weapon for terrorism and mass-murder and as
  • a pretext for having to „intervene militarily“ in oil-rich countries to save the world from the new „threat“ they created themselves (after the old „threat“ of the „evil“ Soviet Union was no longer available)
  • has committed more crimes (many with unspeakable cruelty) than any sane person can imagine …
  • has „fucked up“ Iraq politically since the 1960s (more on this see below)

tells us that sectarianism is the „NATURE OF MODERN IRAQ“ (!) and thus „VIOLENCE IS IN THE OFFING“.

And nobody in the studio reacts to this Kindergarten-version of contemporaray history and obvious effort to white-wash the US-crimes in Iraq.

Again, only Dr. Wasfi realizes how misleading Kiriakou’s statements are and puts his remarks in the proper political & historical context when SMO asks her about „her thoughts on this“? (24:01)

She points out that under Baathist rule, sectarianism was NOT the real driving force, it was all about „holding on to power in a brutal and ruthless way“. If you supported the Saddam regime (and had the right skills) you could end up in high levels of government or military whether your were Shia or Sunni. To put it cynically, it was an „equal opportunity“ suppression, not based on religious discrimination. „They guy (Saddam) even killed his own son-in-law…“

Dr. Wasfi then addresses the claim of Kiriakou about the suppression of „the shia in the south“ by Saddam Hussein:

What happened after the Gulf-War, the American administration ENCOURAGED the Shia TO RISE UP against him“ (Saddam) but when they actually did, they abandoned them to their fate (that the 8yr- long war between Iran and Iraq, also encouraged by the US,  also plays a role here, is also briefly mentioned by Dr. Wasfi and the growing influence of Iran).

„Since the invasion Iraq was transformed from a secular dictatorship into a theocratic dictatorship at the expense of the Iraqi people“. So the Orwellian-named „Operation Iraqi Freedom“ in reality meant „a set-back for women’s rights and for human rights“.

1 victims of SPC in IraqDespite the evident brutality of the Saddam regime, Dr. Wasfi maintains it was „nothing compared what’s been unleashed in Iraq since then“ and „our own ugly brutality that continues to thrive today.. certainly the group IS is the effect of .. our brutal occupation.“

Again, NOBODY IN THE STUDIO RESPONDS … (she just demolished the claim that „after all“ the US did the Iraqis a favour when they removed and murdered the brutal Saddam Hussein allegedly because „life would then be much better“ …)

Dr. Wasfi then rightly points out that Kiriakou‘s (ridiculously naive, politically de-contextualized) presentation of the Kurdish „struggle for independence“ is nothing of the sort:


For years they have been supported by the Israeli regime. The Peshmerga (their fighters) have been armed and trained by the Israelies (see Sibel Edmonds for corroberation and the role of Kurds as eternal „patsies“) so it’s not exactly an independent force coming in. This is why Israel is championing…  the referendum. Other factors are at play here … Israel serves as our colonial outpost in the region“. (Again no reaction …)

Kiriakou then asks: What happens the day after? (The referendum) Is there some kind of wiggle-room? Will there be an agreement about sharing the oil-revenues? Then points out the obvious: Turkey of course, strongly objects to an independent Kurdistan and PKK-leader Öcalan will continue to rot in his prison. .. it is not an easy problem to solve“

The geo-political dimension, the Machiavellian, dirty USrael power-play behind this manufactured Kurdish „independence“ crisis, is again ignored.

Dr. Wasfi then interjects (and happens to articulate exactly what I was thinking at that moment):

„It’s not our problem…we are an empire in the region. This is a little bit to me Western-centric arrogance: 3 men and 1 woman (US citizens) having a conversation about the future of Iraq THAT OUR GOVERNMENT DESTROYED.

Kiriakou reacts somewhat annoyed and rather boastfully:

„Thank God that we live in a .. free society that we can have that conversation without facing execution afterwards.“

Smolarek then turn to the „humanitarian crisis“ theme:

There is a tremendous humanitarian crisis going on in Iraq. (You are a health-expert, Dr. Wasfi) . What are the conditions like in these refugee-camps? What’s the human element…?“


Dr. Wasfi – apparently the only person in the show with a profound (untainted) knowledge of history – does not take the „bait“ (the „humanitarian“ concerns angle) but sticks to the sordid political-historical context:

„Let’s go back for a minute to Mr. Kiriakou’s comment (the „free society“ BS). Was he referring to the brutality of the former Iraqi regime? (JK answers „Yes“). „Let’s go back a little bit further to the 1960s when the CIA brought Saddam to power.

Kiriakou (outraged) interrupts:

That is absolutely incorrect, absolutely false!

Now we have reached the critical moment of the whole show, where a kind of catharsis should take place (as if in a Greek drama) and in a sense it does …but Kiriakou reveals himself as the „villain“ (who is really in need of „purification“).

This is the moment where the „whistleblower“ halo that surrounded Kiriakou since he went to prison lost his shine and the theory, that he might be a fraud, a dastardly PSYOP the CIA inflicted on us (especially the so-called liberal „left“) gains enormous plausibility. It is inconceivable that Kiriakou is ignorant about these „proud achievements“ of the „company“ so the only conclusion can be: HE IS LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH.


There is NO DOUBT that the CIA brought Saddam TO POWER because several well-researched books (2 titles &  1 excerpt see below), articles and even testimony by King Hussein and a regional CIA-chief confirm that the rise of the fascist Baath-Party was in fact engineered by the CIA (with the usual excuse: prevent the communists from taking over…what the Iraqi people WANTED did not concern the CIA at all …)

  • A BRUTAL FRIENDSHIP: The WEST and the ARAB ELITE (1997), Said Aburish
  • OUT OF THE ASHES: THE RESURRECTION OF SADDAM HUSSEIN, (2000) by Andrew & Patrick Cockburn


On February 8, a military coup in Baghdad, in which the Baath Party played a leading role, overthrew Qassim. Support for the conspirators was limited.

In the first hours of fighting, they had only nine tanks under their control. The Baath Party had just 850 active members. What tipped the balance against him was the involvement of the United States. He had taken Iraq out of the anti-Soviet Baghdad Pact. In 1961, he threatened to occupy Kuwait and nationalized part of the Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC), the foreign oil consortium that exploited Iraq’s oil. In retrospect, it was the ClAs favorite coup. “We really had the ts crossed on what was happening,” JAMES CRITCHFIELD, then head of the CIA in the Middle East, told us. “We regarded it as a great victory.” Iraqi participants later confirmed American involvement. “We came to power on a CIA train,” admitted Ali Saleh Sa’adi, the Baath Party secretary general who was about to institute an unprecedented reign of terror. CIA assistance reportedly included coordination of the coup plotters from the agency’s station inside the U.S. embassy in Baghdad as well as a clandestine radio station in Kuwait and solicitation of advice from around the Middle East on who on the left should be eliminated once the coup was successful. To the end, Qassim retained his popularity in the streets of Baghdad. After his execution, his supporters refused to believe he was dead until the coup leaders showed pictures of his bullet-riddled body on TV and in the newspapers.

Source: (excerpt) from OUT OF THE ASHES, The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein, 2000.  (More sources see appendix)

BACK To Loud & Clear:

The „showdown“ between Kiriakou and Dr. Wasfi reaches the critical stage. She reacts to his phony display of moral outrage (How dare you say it was the CIA!) by saying

„No, sorry .. I don’t think you’ve had access to the same information as I  (JK agrees:  yes, completely different information..) She then sets the record straight:

„When the British were kicked out of Iraq, the battle for power came to be between the Baathist Party (BP) and the Iraqi Communist Party. (ICP) The ICP was much older, much lager and much more influential. So for the BP to take power, they needed outside help. I mean it’s documented that…

JK (angrily) interrupts her.. What else is documented?

Dr. Wasfi then takes a direct shot at Kiriakou’s hypocrisy and deceptive „analysis“ about the US-CIA-role in Iraq:

Let me finish … It’s actually a defense and excuse for invading Iraq that somehow we toppled a brutal dictator, when you’re actually ..you were intimately involved in the planning of the illegal shock&awe invasion of Iraq that has led to the death of literally millions of people.

So for you to throw out there that you’re helping anybody and providing freedom by removing Saddam – this is GARBAGE.

(Precisely!). JK tries to interject (angrily) but Dr. Wasfi continues:

It becomes a bigotted conversation when you dehumanize the lives of millions of Iraqis (JK: NONSENSE!) in defence of your own CIA-position.

How did the saintly Mr. Kiriakou react to that inconvenient truth? Here is what he said (with an audibly shaken voice):

We can skip your husband’s actions in Falludja, we won’t talk about that. What we can talk about though are Saddam H. brothers his sons, sons in-law (names them), … we can talk about the human rights abuses that they carried out all through the rule of Saddam …“

But his cheap ad hominem attacks cannot stop Dr. Wasfi because she is riding on a wave of honest, moral outrage while he is merely trying to save himself …


DW: „Absolutely … and we can observe that IT WAS THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION THAT COMPLETELY BACKED THEM and armed the Baathist regime with CHEMICAL, biological and conventional weapons …… (as well as satellite intelligence.“)

At this point, Kiriakou kind of „loses it“. He sounds very irritated, even angry but his statement is extremely revealing:

„I would love to see that evidence because you’re the only person in the world I’ve ever talked to, who says things like that. (!) Then he repeats the first sentence).

Does the guy live in an intellectual vaccuum? Is this kind of political-autism  a precondition for joining the CIA?  (Below: Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein on Dec. 20, 1983 during Reagan Administration)

Rumsfeld Saddam handshake

FACT-CHECK: She is telling THE TRUTH

The toxic „nerve-gas“ – used massively against the Iranian army during the Iran-Iraq war – was imported from Germany see the testimony of Dr. Udo Ulfkotte, who was in Baghdad as a journalist then; but the USG  was heavily involved in facilitating these war crimes:

  1. Recently declassified CIA files prove that, during the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988), US intelligence agencies actively assisted in some of the most horrific chemical weapons attacks in history, which resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people. […] In a single day of the Iran-Iraq war, 1,500 missiles containing deadly chemical agents rained down on Iranian positions. Iraq assembled its arsenal of chemical weapons—including nerve gas, mustard gas, and anthrax —out of supplies purchased directly from western firms, including US corporations. (These “weapons of mass destruction” would later become the pretext for the US invasion and occupation of the country in 2003.)
  2. „But there is an even more striking instance of the United States ignoring use of the chemical weapons that killed tens of thousands of people — during the grinding Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s.
  • As documented in 2002 by Washington Post reporter Michael Dobbs, the Reagan administration knew full well it was selling materials to Iraq that was being used for the manufacture of chemical weapons, and that Iraq was using such weapons, but U.S. officials were more concerned about whether Iran would win rather than how Iraq might eke out a victory“  Source: WaPo
  1. The deadly „Anthrax-spores“ were delivered to Saddam from a US-lab, see the late Senator Byrd’s investigation). The infamous „Anthrax-Letter“ (sent to critics (2 senators) of the unconstitutional, fascist „Patriot Act“) also contained spores from a US (military) lab. (See the well-researched book by Graeme MacQueen) and this:
  2. https://www.counterpunch.org/2001/10/16/the-cia-and-anthrax/



So stating the ugly truth about the horrible crimes & moral hypocrisy of the US/CIA (supporting the worst tyrants and breaking all the moral and legal rules that form the basis for a civilized society) is simply too much for Kiriakou. He does not talk to people „who say something like that“.

How deluded must someone be to join the CIA?

Dr. Wasfi certainly is not „the only person in the world“ who can look behind the PR-facade of constant, unbearable US moralizing about „democracy“ and „freedom“ and see the ruthless, power-hungry monster lurking behind it. (See also the second half of Harold Pinter’s excellent Nobel Prize speech, the paragraph beginning with „Political language …“)

If Kiriakou really never talked to „such persons“ he must either be extremely indoctrinated (what the real role of the CIA and the US government is in the world) or extremely stupid.

DW (now also annoyed) can be heard in the background saying „Am I a guest on the show or (is this the Kiriakou-show)?

Kiriakou (taking the moral highground big time) goes on:

„I think the UN would be interested in seeing that evidence, something like that because what you’are acccusing a lot of people of doing, including me, are COMMITTING CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. I would put my human-rights record up against yours and your husbands any day of the week.“ (35:27)

Now we have clear evidence that Kiriakou is either a great actor or mentally imprisoned by the wall of narcissistic „group-think“ the CIA implanted in him. There is no doubt that the CIA (in cahoots with the US-mliitary, which it has infiltrated a long time ago – see Colonel Fletcher Prouty) has COMMITTED ENORMOUS CRIMES, and yes, „against humanity“.

CIA MK UltraJust read the books (or watch the videos)  by former CIA „case-officers“ John Stockwell, Philip Agee, Victor Marchetti, etc. and feel the wave of nausea when you read about the psychopathic, insane „MIND-CONTROL“ programs (involving the horrific traumatizing of four yr old kids), the „PHOENIX (Terror) PROGRAM“ in Vietnam, the countless massacres in Indonesia, Latin America, Africa, the support for fascist military dictatorships, even in Europe (what they did to Greece, where Kiriakou‘s family has their roots, is abominable and yet he stated publicly „I love the CIA“) no continent was spared …endless assassinations, subversion, structural violence … and it never stopped  … it is hard to think of a crime that CIA has not comitted …

So the display of moral outrage by Kiriakou is simply not credible.

I once read this is how these operators are trained to react when confronted in public with the ugly truth: deny everything, take the moral highground and attack the person’s character who „threatens“ your deceptive public posture.

IS THIS THE DOWNFALL OF LOUD & CLEAR? (by cognitive infiltration?)

Kiriakou should not be allowed to sit in the studio of a supposedly progressive, critical radio-show and attack guests who are revealing what a big (moral) fraud he and the USG really is. We all have our ideological blinders and suffer from „confirmation bias“ but this is totally unacceptable.

SHAME on Loud & Clear for letting that happen and then conduct „business as usual“ as if nothing had happened …

Smolarek by this time must have had big regrets that the was „filling in“ for Brian Becker that day, who normally hosts the show and is usually doing a great job.

Eugene Puryear(perhaps one of the world’s fastest-talking radio presenters) tries to rescue the situation (from getting totally out of hand) by conceding „points“ to both sides (of the fence):

„There is no doubt … I think … we’re not in disagreement here .. the US-invasion was not something that brought a huge amount of freedom to the Iraqi people“ … (!)

(„huge amount of freedom“? Give me a break, Eugene … do not insult our intelligence…)

He then goes on to say that „that is not the question here ,the question is: Where are we gonna go from here?  I just have to say (on a more hopeful note) .. we can work over all those differences ..bla, bla, bla (a very lame speech, Eugene).

Smolerik than announces that „we unfortunately have to go to a short break“ (36:34) … Dr.Wasfi has now obviously been cut-off from the mike to avoid further confrontation with Kiriakou.

Next on the show: „THE MILITARY OPTION“ is again „on the table“ (against North-Korea, another long-suffering victim of unspeakable US-crimes …)  Take note, Mr. Smolarek:

WAR is NOT an option, WAR is a crime … the worst of all crimes …  if you accept this kind of deceptive, morally sanitizing language you are no better than the mainstream media parrots .. and with the dishonest Kiriakou now a permanent „feature“, the credibility of Loud & Clear  is going down the drain …

APPENDIX (More sources about the CIA-organized coup in Iraq (1963)

MUST-READ ARTICLES on Counterpunch about US-crimes in Iraq





“The overthrow of president Abdul Karim Kassim on February 8, 1963 was not, of course, the first intervention in the region by the agency, but it was the bloodiest – far bloodier than the coup it orchestrated in 1953 to restore the shah of Iran to power. Just how gory, and how deep the CIA’s involvement in it, is demonstrated in a new book by SAID ABURISH, a writer on Arab political affairs.

The book, A BRUTAL FRIENDSHIP: The WEST and the ARAB ELITE (1997), sets out the details not only of how the CIA closely controlled the planning stages but also how it played A CENTRAL ROLE in the subsequent purge of suspected leftists after the coup.

The author reckons that 5,000 were killed, giving the names of 600 of them – including many doctors, lawyers, teachers and professors who formed Iraq’s educated elite. The massacre was carried out on the basis of death lists provided by the CIA.

… According to Aburish, however, the American agent who produced the longest list was WILLIAM MCHALE, who operated under the cover of a news correspondent for the Beirut bureau of TIME magazine.

The butchery began as soon as the lists reached Baghdad. No-one was spared. Even pregnant women and elderly men were killed. Some were tortured in front of their children. According to the author, Saddam who ‘had rushed back to Iraq from exile in Cairo to join the victors, was personally involved in the torture of leftists in the separate detention centres for fellaheen [peasants] and the Muthaqafeen or educated classes.’

King HUSSAIN of Jordan, who maintained close links with the CIA, says the death lists were relayed by radio to Baghdad from Kuwait, the foreign base for the Iraqi coup. According to him, a secret radio broadcast was made from Kuwait on the day of the coup, February 8, ‘that relayed to those carrying out the coup the names and addresses of communists there, so they could be seized and executed.’

The CIA’s royal collaborator also gives an insight into how closely the Ba’athist party and American intelligence operators worked together during the planning stages. ‘Many meetings were held between the Ba’ath party and American intelligence – the most critical ones in Kuwait,’ he says.

At the time the Ba’ath party was a small nationalist movement with only 850 members. But the CIA decided to use it because of its close relations with the army. One of its members tried to assassinate Kassim as early as 1959. Saddam, then 22, was wounded in the leg, later fleeing the country.

According to Aburish, the Ba’ath party leaders – IN RETURN FOR CIA SUPPORT – agreed to ‘undertake a cleansing programme to get rid of the communists and their leftist allies.’ Hani Fkaiki, a Ba’ath party leader, says that the party’s contact man who orchestrated the coup was WILLIAM LAKELAND, the US assistant military attache in Baghdad.

One of the coup leaders, colonel SALEH MAHDI AMMASH, former Iraqi assistant military attache in Washington, was in fact arrested for being in touch with Lakeland in Baghdad. His arrest caused the conspirators to move earlier than they had planned.

Aburish’s book shows that the Ba’ath leaders DID NOT DENY plotting with the CIA to overthrow Kassim. When Syrian Ba’ath party officials demanded to know why they were in cahoots with the US agency, the Iraqis tried to justify it in terms of ideology comparing their collusion to ‘Lenin arriving in a German train to carry out his revolution.’ Ali Saleh, the minister of interior of the regime which had replaced Kassim, said: ‘We came to power on a CIA train.’

 It should not come as a surprise that the Americans were so eager to overthrow Kassim or so willing to cause such a blood bath to achieve their objective. At the height of the cold war, they were causing similar mayhem in Latin America and Indo-China OVERTHROWING ANY LEADERS THAT DARED SHOW THE SLIGHEST DEGREE OF INDEPENDENCE.

Kassim was a prime target for US aggression and arrogance. After taking power in 1958, he took Iraq out of the Baghdad Pact, the US-backed anti-Soviet alliance in the Middle East, and in 1961 he dared nationalise part of the concession of the British-controlled Iraq Petroleum company and resurrected a long-standing Iraqi claim to Kuwait ( the regime which succeeded him immediately dropped the claim to Kuwait).

But the cold war does not by itself explain Uncle Sam’s propensity to violence. When president George Bush bombed Iraq to smithereens, killing thousands of civilians, the cold war was over. Clinton cannot cite the cold war for insisting that the brutal regime of sanctions imposed on the country should stay. […]

Source: Muslimedia: August 16-31, 1997




Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized