Tag Archives: Iraq


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

NucLIAR & Flat Earth News

Congratulations! Thanks to the publication of the latest NucLiar “strategic information” piece, the Guardian is now the front-runner for the “Flat Earth News Media Award”, (category: Daft Science & Environment Editor) founded by the Edward Bernays Society for contributions to “moulding public opinon” as part of a hidden economic agenda.

In the middle of the “climate change” dilemma, wouldn’t it be a great PR-idea to sponsor an Oxford professor (pay for the publication of his ludicrous book) who claims that “nuclear dangers are overstated” in order to  generate support for the “nuclear renaissance”?  Worried about the easily detectable, systemic distortions of an incompetent “expert” and  the dangerous “dumbing down” of science? No Fear!    “They report what they are given” [cited in  “Flat Earth News”]

Excuse the irony & candour, but this is so obviously a piece of propaganda for the nuclear industry that the editor who approved it, ought to be fired at the spot: either for lack of journalistic integrity or for sheer stupidity. Here are some basic reasons why the whole story is a  PR-scam:

1) Lack of Expertise:

Allison is a particle physicist, not an expert in molecular biology, biochemistry, biophysics  &  genetics  (the  combined, overlapping knowledge necessary for radiation biology). The focus of all big questions about the effects of low doses of ionizing radiation is the cellular, molecular level not the primitive concepts of  “body dose” or “organ dose” which are based on crude physical models developed by – you guessed it – physicists.

2) Comparing apples  to oranges

Allison, as echoed in the article, makes no distinctions between different types of radiation exposure but the effects of  acute,  external, low LET ionizing radiation (gamma-rays from nuclear explosions or x-rays) cannot be simply extrapolated to estimate the health risks from nuclear installations because they result from chronic, internal, high LET ionizing radiation, especially from inhaled or ingested alpha-particles.

Also, not all radioisotopes have the same biological impact if internalized:  e.g. whether from “ hot particles”, “warm particles”, Plutonium or Uranium, the effects are different. If particles are “stuck” in tissue or sequentially decaying radionuclides like Strontium 90 (from weapons fallout) bind to DNA, the radiological and chemical toxicity cannot just be lumped together under the heading of “same dose, same risk”. Auger emitters for example, widely used for radiotherapy, create much greater damage at the cellular level than other radionuklides, i.e. x-rays:

“Even in the case of uniform distribution, some of those Auger emitters are highly radiotoxic compared to hard gamma rays. For Auger emitters to bond to radiosensitive sites in cell nucleus, much higher radiation effectiveness could be expected.”

This is another reason why the simple comparison of risk between radiotherapy exposure, X-rays, CT-scans, Sellafield and “natural background” exposure is not valid since Allison’s arguments are based on the premise that ionizing energy  is  always evenly distributed in  the body, which is demonstrably false. (More on the subject see under 4 below)

3) Nucliar AtTAC aided by “ Truth-Avoiding Coverage

Instead of inflicting on the public yet another endless debate between disagreeing scientists,  it ought to be the job of journalists to investigate who is telling the truth[1] and who is lying or serving a hidden agenda. We need an independent press to establish trust and authenticity in order  to get real insight.

As Nick Davies rightly points out, the concept of “neutrality” or “balance” must be reassessed to stop “the packaging of conflicting claims which is precisely the opposite of truth-telling”. Jha and Bosley are a perfect example of this problem: The assertions of Allison  are “balanced” by reporting what other scientists have to say, but all statements are dubious and not illuminative as long as the bigger political context is missing and even more so,  if the “background” is also a showcase for “churnalism”: “Nuclear radiation risk: The current consensus” which brings us to

4) Who the hell is the ICRP? How is “dose” calculated and what does it mean?

How is the public supposed to make an informed judgement if journalists do not bother to get a deeper understanding of a controversial subject BEFORE they write about it (or publish relevant “material”)? The aforementioned “current consensus” background by Alok Jha is another showcase for ignorant “science reporting”:

“How is radiation harmful?” ( One size fits all – Oversimplifications)

Ionising radiation … can damage the DNA in the nucleus of a cell. Unless the cell’s repair machinery can fix the breaks, or else the cell itself is killed, it has a higher chance of becoming cancerous.”

If the “editor” had bothered to do even a quick research on the subject, he would have discovered, that this is  no longer a valid assessment of risk because hundreds of studies have challenged the outdated view, that relevant biological damage occurs only if the cell nucleus is hit:

To be sure, new mechanistic possibilities must now be considered in interpreting the results of both in vitro and in vivo studies inasmuch as nuclear DNA alone no longer can be viewed as the only relevant target for the actions of IR, or even necessarily the most important target for eliciting at least some detrimental effects of IR under some exposure conditions.”[2]

“What is a safe dose?”

This is an even greater insult to any intelligent reader (and to painstaking journalism) because Jha has obviously just copied the “industry friendly information” (lacking any scientific credibility) he received from Allison. Besides, the first thing he should have done is explain  what “dose” realls means, that it is not based on scientific measurement but just a theoretical, mathematical construct:  to give an  estimate based on a physical “ model”, multiplied with another factor to give “RBE”,  which is supposed to enable the quantification of risk (the likelihood and extent of biological damage). A great source of information for all these questions is the 2004 CERRIE Report (and the surrounding controversy of political influence) which the guardian reported – why did Jha not use  these sources instead of recycling the rubbish from Allison?

It is not so hard to understand  that, whether a tiny alpha-particle is stuck in lung tissue or in the lymph nodes, etc. makes a huge difference in determining the detrimental health effects, not only because different organs have a different radiation sensitivity.  Besides, it is plainly ridiculous to calculate / extrapolate linearly from the “equivalent” (organ) dose which is in turn derived from “effective” (body) dose when effects on microscopic (incredibly tiny, i.e. millionths of a milimeter) volumes at the molecular and cellular  level  need to be examined and understood.

In addition, we also need to understand if and how different radionuclides move in the body (biokinetics). It is pretty obvious that the risk assessement for complex cellular systems  cannot be adopted from studies on external exposure to x-rays or gamma-rays, with a relatively uniform distribution of energy in the tissue. A reliable  model to estimate the combined effects of different types of radiation  has not yet been found.

But all the evidence strongly points to the conclusion that it is the concentration of ionization (its density) in a small group of cells, or even a single cell that defines “risk” at the molecular level, not the bodily dose (more a political consensus than a scientific one)  as Paul  Brown correctly reported in 2004:

The National Radiological Protection Board has always measured a tiny dose received by an individual as if it affected the entire body evenlyso the result was a dilution that appeared to do little harm. The possibility that the dose would lodge near a bone or in the brain and emit radiation inflicting localised damage leading to cancer had not been not accepted.

So all the talks about “background dose” or “safe dose” is meaningless and the absurd claims that below 100 mSv, there is no problem whatsoever and below 200 mSv DNA repair can fix everything (and other absurdities) prove that Allison is a charlatan and I bet 10.000 EUR, that if investigated properly, some connection to the nuclear industry will be found. If Jha had bothered to look at the sources Allison frequently uses, the penny would already have dropped: the US DoE, the NEI, the  NEA, the “Radiation, Science & Health Inc.” (a front group, if there ever was one) and obscure and refuted studies like “Is Chronic Radiation an effective  prophylaxis against cancer?” The man even champions the routine  irradiation of food! (see his website) Allison’s  attempt, to bring the “hormesis myth back to life is obvious, but futile.

The “lack of understanding” of how the body deals with LDIR is the result of ostracizing  independent scientists who represent a danger to the nuclear industry and its unhealthy ties to the military, the great protector of the nuclear holy grail. So any “article” dealing with risks of IR can only make sense if accompanied by “background” about the political agenda behind the “peaceful use of nuclear energy”. The Orwellian character of this charade ought to have been clear from the beginning, with the ludicrous slogan “atoms for peace” which demonstrates that exactly the opposite of Allison’s claim is true: not the “anti-nuclear” lobby created “irrational fear” but the very rational fear of ionizing radiation (a life-preserving instinct since we have no sensory receptor) was ridiculed and the immense risks and uncertainties downplayed, to foster acceptance of an insane technology that threatens all life on earth and has caused a global cancer epidemic (among other diseases).

Since the second world war, scientists have worked on the basis that there is no dose of radiation so low that it’s not dangerous.”

This is complete BS. A quick look at the historical development of the ICRP model shows that for decades the converse view was taken: Based on the extrapolations from Hiroshima, the accepted wisdom was that below a certain threshold, health risks were negligible. The “acceptable” or “permissible” (maximum) dose had to be  adjusted downward again and again as increasing scientific evidence showed that the risks were much higher than originally assumed.

You do have authentic and independent experts on radiation biology (biochemistry) in the UK: among them the courageous Dr. Chris Busby – Why is he not allowed to write in the Guardian or serve as competent advisor on the subject?

Your reports about genetic engineering are also very uncritical …  Political / economic pressure?

The ethical responsibility of the press  to inform the public about these controversial  scientific issues (affecting many generations to come)  is enormous …

Are you up to it with these “reporters” ?

( ….This  comment was sent as reply to the guardian’s “coverage” of the dangers of ionizing radiation….)















Beyond Treason and « Gulf War Syndrome – Killing Our Own «

<<<<to watch the BT video click on the  image

P.S.  Send Simon Jenkins to Iraq and let him see the deformed babies, the exploding cancer incidence in children, the immense suffering,  for himself. The man is a small-minded idiot: the incredibly stupid assertion that “Nobody makes money from downplaying risk (how about the nuclear industry, eh? – the evidence of a cover-up (just look at the “official” Chernobyl figures) is staring in your face) while at the same time accusing the “anti-nuclear lobby” of  exaggerating risk for personal gain must go down in the history of print as one of the darkest moments of human bias and ignorance …. because people are suffering and dying while Jenkins gets paid for his high  bollocks  turnout …  (remember Asbestos, DDT, PCBs,  – wasn’t it all “safe” ..???!!!)

Fatima, this little girl, was suffering from severe congenital malformations, is – in Jenkins universe, the result of “irrational fears about irradiation”

Tell that to her parents… (Fatima has died in the meantime, she was born with two heads ….) What can one say to express the feelings of outrage and grief?

Remember, this is the result of “Operation Iraqi Freedom” …..

[1] IFJ: “Respect for Truth and for the right of the public to truth is the first duty of the journalist”      Is it in reality?

[2] i.e. Radiation-induced effects in unirradiated cells: A review and implications in cancer, 2002

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized