Antiwar.com Blog

[audio:http://dissentradio.com/charles/aw2007-10-01chalmersjohnson.mp3]

Chalmers Johnson, author of the indispensable Blowback trilogy, discusses the economic costs of empire, his belief that Bush has decided against war with Iran, the failure of the American people and the structure of the Republic to prevent executive branch tyranny, Admiral Fallon’s dangerous insubordination for a good cause and the future of blowback against the United States, the secrecy of the national security state and Israel’s recent bombing of Syria.

MP3 here. (33:10)

Chalmers Johnson is president of the Japan Policy Research Institute, a non-profit research and public affairs organization devoted to public education concerning Japan and international relations in the Pacific. He taught for thirty years, 1962-1992, at the Berkeley and San Diego campuses of the University of California and held endowed chairs in Asian politics at both of them. At Berkeley he served as chairman of the Center for Chinese Studies and as chairman of the Department of Political Science. His B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees in economics and political science are all from the University of California, Berkeley. He first visited Japan in 1953 as a U.S. Navy officer and has lived and worked there with his wife, the anthropologist Sheila K. Johnson, every year between 1961 and 1998.

Johnson has been honored with fellowships from the Ford Foundation, the Social Science Research Council, and the Guggenheim Foundation; and in 1976 he was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He has written numerous articles and reviews and some sixteen books, including Peasant Nationalism and Communist Power on the Chinese revolution, An Instance of Treason on Japan’s most famous spy, Revolutionary Change on the theory of violent protest movements, and MITI and the Japanese Miracle on Japanese economic development. This last-named book laid the foundation for the “revisionist” school of writers on Japan, and because of it the Japanese press dubbed him the “Godfather of revisionism.”

He was chairman of the academic advisory committee for the PBS television series “The Pacific Century,” and he played a prominent role in the PBS “Frontline” documentary “Losing the War with Japan.” Both won Emmy awards. His most recent books are Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2000) and The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic, which was published by Metropolitan in January 2004. Blowback won the 2001 American Book Award of the Before Columbus Foundation.

[audio:http://dissentradio.com/radio/07_09_28_porter.mp3]

Gareth Porter easily destroys the claims Cheney Cabal, the Democrats and the media’s about Iran’s actions inside Iraq, the “presumption of guilt” established by the Imperial Senate’s passing of the Lieberman-Kyle resolution and explains the new jargon behind the White House’s Iran policy, what it means, who on the inside is resisting and what the American people can do about it.

MP3 here. (52:33)

Dr. Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist on U.S. national security policy who has been independent since a brief period of university teaching in the 1980s. Dr. Porter is the author of four books, the latest of which is Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam (University of California Press, 2005). He has written regularly for Inter Press Service on U.S. policy toward Iraq and Iran since 2005.

Dr. Porter was both a Vietnam specialist and an anti-war activist during the Vietnam War and was Co-Director of Indochina Resource Center in Washington. Dr. Porter taught international studies at City College of New York and American University. He was the first Academic Director for Peace and Conflict Resolution in the Washington Semester program at American University.

[audio:http://dissentradio.com/charles/aw2007-10-01wesclark.mp3]

Gen. Wesley Clark, former supreme allied commander of NATO, Democratic presidential candidate and author of A Time to Lead: For Duty, Honor and Country, explains why he thinks Iran should be denied the ability to produce nuclear weapons (which they don’t even have anyway), but that Bush should talk with them instead of starting another war, U.S. control of oil resources, why the War Party has no legitimate claim on the exclusive ability to support the troops and why they fight.

MP3 here. (19:05)

During thirty-four years in the United States Army Wesley K. Clark rose to the rank of four-star general as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. After his retirement in 2000, he became an investment banker, author, commentator, and businessman. In September 2003 he ran as a Democratic candidate for President of the United States.

We’ve seen how Seymour Hersh and Gabriel Kolko judge the prospects of an attack on Iran. Now Jim Henley responds to Kolko point by point.

The aide (a senior advisor to President Bush) said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernable reality” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors… and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” — as reported by Ron Suskind, in the New York Times Magazine, 10-17-2004 –Geov Parrish, History ignored, President’s men rebrand ‘War on Terror’ as World War III, WorkingForChange.com, 09.12.06

[White House Press Sec.] Tony [Snow]: No, as a matter of fact the president has an obligation to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is an obligation that presidents have enacted through signing statements going back to Jefferson. So, while the Supreme Court can be an arbiter of the Constitution, the fact is the President is the one, the only person who, by the Constitution, is given the responsibility to preserve, protect, and defend that document, so it is perfectly consistent with presidential authority under the Constitution itself. –In which Tony Snow laughs at me (but the last laugh is on Tony), BTC News, 9/22/2006

They believe we need a different kind of government now, an Executive government essentially, rule by decree, which is what we’re getting with signing statements. Signing statements are talked about as line-item vetoes which is one [way] of describing them which are unconstitutional in themselves, but in other ways are just saying the president says “I decide what I enforce. I decide what the law is. I legislate.” –‘A Coup Has Occurred,’ Daniel Ellsberg (who leaked the secret Vietnam War “Pentagon Papers”), Sep. 20, 2007

[Film maker George] Lucas’ own geopolitics can sound pretty bleak: “All democracies turn into dictatorshipship, but not by coup. The people give their democracy to a dictator, whether it’s Julius Caesar or Napoleon or Adolf Hitler. Ultimately, the general population goes along with the idea “ Dark Victory -April 23, 2002, 12:40:03

The UK Daily Mail on Sunday reports that British MPs were surprised to hear a visiting Pentagon official declare: “I hate all Iranians.”

Debra Cagan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Coalition Affairs to US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, made the comments this month to a meeting of six Members of Parliament. She also accused Britain of “dismantling” the Anglo-US-led coalition in Iraq by pulling troops out of Basra too soon.

The report says that although the statement about Iranians was an aside, “it was not out of keeping with her general demeanour.” “She seemed more keen on saying she didn’t like Iranians than that the US had no plans to attack Iran,” said one MP. “She did say there were no plans for an attack but the tone did not fit the words.” Another MP said: “I formed the impression that some in America are looking for an excuse to attack Iran. It was very alarming.”

The Pentagon denied Ms. Cagan said she “hated” Iranians. “She doesn’t speak that way,” said an official.

But when The Mail on Sunday spoke to four of the six MPs, three confirmed privately that Cagain made the remark and one declined to comment. The other two could not be contacted.

I have to hand it to Ms. Cagan for being much more honest on the subject than most officials.