http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org/Tuskegee_Airmen_History.html

All through this period of time there seems to be certain well worn paths of power, money and static ideologies. If the idea was to wage economic warfare over a protracted period of time Zbig and Kissinger had no allegiance to the common man.

Kissinger held the very men executing his policies in very low regard. Zbig’s role
and actions he supported led to the Taliban in Afghanistan and to the rise of bin Laden and al Qaeda.

On this point I have puzzled after. Would an OBL have materialized eventually? What would Afganistan have been left to it’s own devices? The whole region has searching for balance and finding none.

Great post, statbabe. You know, while Eleanor Roosevelt wasnot a legislator

To an extent, this gives an opening to examine Clinton’s role as a legislator during her time as first lady, drafting legislation, even, such as the health care initiative.

I’d be interested in knowing the full extent of Hillary’s work, particularly in terms of policy, while she served as first lady.

Most American high school history books describe how the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, “without provocation and with overwhelming force”. America then “came to the rescue” of the Afghan “resistance”. This happened under president Jimmy Carter.

Yet Carter’s National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski confirms that it was the US and not the Soviet Union which started the war:

“According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention….” (Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Le Nouvel Observateur, 15-21 November 1998)

In the Wake of 9/11

In an incisive editorial published a few days after the tragic events of 9/11, anti-war critic Tom Burghardt points to the historical roots of Al Qaeda and the complicity of successive US administrations since the presidency of Jimmy Carter:

As evidence mounts that the perpetrators [of the 9/11 attacks] were connected to Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida (”The Base”) organization, it is also critical that we expose the deadly roots of this group: the CIA, the corrupt Saudi dynasty and Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency. It mattered not a whit to the American ruling class that two million Afghans were killed in the U.S. “jihad” against the Soviet Union. Carter, Reagan, Bush, Brzezinski, Casey…mark these names down…they should be remembered — and cursed — in the coming days… If there is to be a full account of last Tuesday’s massacre [September 11 2001] — and criminal prosecution of the perpetrators — justice cries out for an indictment of the architect’s of the Afghan “resistance” [meaning the "Militant Islamic base"]… (Antifa Bulletin 133, 16 September 2001 http://burn.ucsd.edu/archives/ats-l/2001.09/msg00010.html )

snip:

This continuity in US foreign policy since the Carter Administration is not in itself a result of a “consensus” between Republicans and Democrats. It essentially points to a crisis in “civilian politics”. In other words, the military and intelligence apparatus has taken over the reigns of foreign policy in close consultation with Wall Street, the Texas oil conglomerates and the military industrial complex. With key decisions taken behind closed doors at the CIA and the Pentagon, civilian political institutions including the President and the US Congress increasingly play the role of a façade.

In other words, US foreign policy does not emanate from the institutions of civilian government (i.e. the Legislature and Executive). It exists because the US military-intelligence apparatus — and the various powers behind it — tend to override the institutions of civilian government in setting both the military and diplomatic agenda.

In this process, which has reached a new stage during the G. W. Bush administration, the Commander-in-Chief, largely responds to the instructions of key advisers. While the illusion of a functioning democracy prevails in the eyes of public opinion, the US president has become a mere public relations figurehead, visibly with little understanding of key foreign policy issues.

my reply..it is against everything this nation has stood for, that is what is wrong with that.

Innocent till proven guilty, and a constitution, and treaties we have signed that become part of our constitution, that is what is wrong with that.

Whe we become what we percieve our enemys to be …or what goes against the very principles of this nation of ours, and our treaties and our responsibilities to our constitution…we are worse.

It didn’t take a bomb to kill my co-workers on 9/11 ..and that was someone else’s “might” .. was it not?

did that make it right?????????

fly

Might is right. What’s wrong with that? It’s the reality of international affairs.

It is contrary to our idea of justice for all.

Might is right. What’s wrong with that? It’s the reality of international affairs.

Iraq, for one and the simplistic expectation a bomb can win a war, in this new and modern age.

See?

Zbig, Cheney, Bush that whole crew has no clue about strategy, and the mechanism of warfare.

Bombing Pakistan will not stop terrorism.

Some people need to get it through their heads bombs don’t threaten.

afternoon crew!!

Team Obama has a whole crew working this web site!!…and watch the spamming happen on the front page!!

can you say god father of Osama…

and we should be surprised he supports Obama..

where does anyone think Obama got the idea of Bombing Pakistan?..The problem was, Obama didn’t understand it all before he said it in a debate!!

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

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

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

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

The above has been translated from the French by Bill Blum author of the indispensible, “Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II” and “Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower” Portions of the books can be read at:

He is right about this:

Terrorized by ‘War on Terror’
How a Three-Word Mantra Has Undermined America
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301613.html

And this:

Zbigniew Brzezinski warns of false flag attack to trigger Iran war

http://mkane.gnn.tv/blogs/24618/Video_of_Cheney_on_Gulf_War_1_Surprise

http://www.oilempire.us/zbig.html

Video of Cheney on Gulf War 1 - Surprise?!?

Howvere the question is–is Zbig right about backing the Ghazi madmen of Afghanistan in the context of 9/11?

He sowed the seeds of Al Qaeda blowback and the old fucker and is conclusively but loosely associated with the terrible event because he armed and funded the Muj.

This isn’t shovking.

zis is ‘ow Eastern Europeans see the world.