Philip Giraldi

US, Al Qaeda Prepare for War With Iran

[audio:http://dissentradio.com/radio/07_24_07_scott_goyette_show_3giraldi.mp3]

Former CIA counter-terrorism officer and Antiwar.com columnist Philip Giraldi debunks the War Party’s claims that Iran backs al Qaeda, explains U.S. support for the terrorist groups Mujahadeen-e-Khalq and Jundullah against Iran, and the two most likely circumstances in which Cheney will use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against them.

MP3 here.

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is a partner in Cannistraro Associates, contributing editor at the American Conservative magazine and is a regular columnist for Antiwar.com.

Robert Dreyfuss

US Continues to Back Iran in Iraq

[audio:http://dissentradio.com/radio/07_24_07_scott_goyette_show_4dreyfuss.mp3]

Investigative reporter Robert Dreyfuss explains why America supports the Iran factions in Iraq against the Shia and Sunni nationalists who are attempting to create a multi-ethnic coalition government.

MP3 here.

For nearly fifteen years Robert Dreyfuss has worked as an independent journalist who specializes in magazine features, profiles, and investigative stories in the areas of politics and national security. In 2001, he was profiled as a leading investigative journalist by the Columbia Journalism Review, and two of his articles have won awards from The Washington Monthly. In 2003, Dreyfuss was awarded Project Censored’s first prize for a story on the role of oil in U.S. policy toward Iraq.He has appeared on scores of radio and television talk shows, including Hannity and Colmes on Fox News, C-Span, CNBC, MSNBC, Court TV, and, on National Public Radio, The Diane Rehm Show and Public Interest with Kojo Nnamdi, and Pacifica’s Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman.

Based in Alexandria, Va., Dreyfuss been writing for Rolling Stone for at least a decade, and currently covers national security for Rolling Stone’s National Affairs section. He’s a contributing editor at The Nation, a contributing writer at Mother Jones, and a senior correspondent for The American Prospect. His articles have also appeared in The Washington Monthly, The New Republic, Newsday, Worth, California Lawyer, The Texas Observer, E, In These Times, The Detroit Metro Times, Public Citizen, Extra!, and, in Japan, in Esquire, Foresight and Nikkei Business. On line, he writes frequently for TomPaine.com, and produced a popular blog for Tom Paine called The Dreyfuss Report.

Dreyfuss is best known for ground-breaking stories about the war in Iraq, the war on terrorism, and post-9/11 U.S. foreign policy. In 2002, he wrote the first significant profile of Ahmed Chalabi by a journalist, for The American Prospect. Also in 2002, he wrote the first analysis of the war between the Pentagon and the CIA over policy toward Iraq, which included the first important account of the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans. Other stories in The American Prospect included detailed accounts of neoconservative war plans for the broader Middle East. In 2004, he co-authored what is still the most complete account of the work of the Office of Special Plans in manufacturing misleading or false intelligence about Iraq, for Mother Jones, entitled “The Lie Factory.”

Before 9/11, Dreyfuss wrote extensively about intelligence issues, including pieces about post-Cold War excursions by the CIA into economic espionage, about the CIA’s nonofficial cover (NOC) program, and about lobbying by U.S. defense and intelligence contractors over the annual secret intelligence budget.

Among his many other pieces, Dreyfuss has profiled organizations, including the Democratic Leadership Council, the Center for American Progress, the National Rifle Association, the NAACP, the Human Rights Campaign, and Handgun Control. He has also profiled Vermont Governor Howard Dean, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, conservative activist Grover Norquist, House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, Senator John McCain, and, in 1999, Texas Governor George W. Bush. One of his most important pieces was the result of a weeks-long visit to Vietnam in 1999, where he wrote about the effects of Agent Orange dioxin in Vietnam since the 1970s. His stories on the privatization of Social Security and the politics of Medicare and Medical Savings Accounts have been widely cited.

Dreyfuss is a member of the American Society of Journalists and Authors (ASJA) and Investigative Reporters and Editors (IRE). He graduated from Columbia University.

Give It to the Soft Boy

Over the years our Viewpoints section has featured some interesting essays by artists of various sorts, including Monty Python‘s Terry Jones and chef-turned-author Anthony Bourdain. One piece I wish we had excerpted was this bit by English musician Robyn Hitchcock from late 2002 (back when people like Randy Barnett, Glenn Reynolds, and Andrew Sullivan were pissing themselves over Saddam’s unmanned aerial vehicles of doom). Hitchcock isn’t a hyperpolitical do-gooder, but he did pen a great antiwar song back in 1980, the punky, acerbic “I Wanna Destroy You.” From his Slate diary entry of Dec. 9, 2002:

7:07 a.m. Grey dawn. The silhouettes of bare trees slowly take shape against a sky several degrees darker than the porridge that I have just eaten. The branches, and the twigs that grow from them, wave in the freezing air. From my window I can see the shapes of people scuttling along the path in the nearby park, followed by the brake lights of the Civil Defence trucks.

It has been several hours since the last Iraqi air raid. We are lucky, I suppose, here in West London, that the majority of collateral damage has been at Heathrow Airport, 15 miles away and now, obviously, uninhabited. Furthermore, the immense improvements in the homing devices in unmanned missiles since the V2 rockets that hit us at the end of W2 (the last time Britain suffered air raids) have meant that, barring the odd stray bomb pulverizing a mall or side street, the devastation has been confined to the former airport.

At this stage, the bombing is largely for show. Britain is taking it on the chin; it is only the older people who remember the last time we were attacked who seem extremely upset. When the first Iraqi missiles struck, before the reintroduction here of petrol rationing, many families would actually drive out to Heathrow to watch the gradual demolition of this once-flourishing metropolis. When I say families, I mean mostly the men. Security, too, has been blasé by World War II standards. Today’s smart missile can find you whether you are there or not: This time around, there’s no black-out. Getting into my office this morning and switching on the light hasn’t provoked any hassle from the wardens.

Uh-oh—either the tube-trains have woken up, or that was a stray coming down. I felt the house flicker just a moment in shock, then go back exactly the way it was. Hopefully it won’t wake Michèle upstairs. I can hear Figgy jump off the chair outside my door, where I saw her sleeping on my crushed velvet trousers when I came in here with my tea. What amazes me is that I’m not more terrified. As Michèle said, it’s scary what you can adjust to.

Why, oh why, did the Iraqis refuse to believe us when we showed them, beyond doubt, that we do not have weapons of mass destruction? Every cupboard and cellar door was opened wide for their inspectors. To date, less than a thousand people have been killed here, according to the Daily Express—but what happens when the sites are set on Central London?

The rumor is that Britain does possess some kind of nuclear or biological bomb, but that Downing Street will not deploy it until (or preferably unless) Saddam Hussein orders an attack on Buckingham Palace.

… Sorry, where was I? Daydreaming again! Oh, yes. …

Other links of interest:

Terry Jones:
Let Them Eat Bombs
God: I’ve Lost Faith in Blair
Julius Caesar Had Gaul; George Bush Just Has Gall
They Have Made a Killing
Call That Humiliation?
McCain’s Solution: A Nuclear War With Iran
A True Land of Opportunity

Anthony Bourdain:
Watching Beirut Die

Finally, an Alternative to Peace and Freedom!

So there’s a running debate in libertarian circles about whether Randy Barnett’s a libertarian or not, and it’s getting old. This is a superficially free country; Barnett and his buddies can employ any nomenclature they like. Barnett does seem to be true blue on all the issues critical to neolibertarians — some pot for every chickenhawk and a meth lab in every garage — and perhaps anyone who bats above .500 on a given list of public policies should be called a libertarian. Hmm, he’s for a liberal application of the biggest, most destructive government program around — but he’s really solid on a toddler’s right to pornography, so we’ll call it even. Whatever floats your boat, dude.

What bothers me is the notion that Barnett’s recent Wall Street Journal piece credibly represents anything like libertarianism. Even putting philosophical matters to the side, I defy anyone who doesn’t watch Fox News 24/7 to read Barnett’s op-ed without wincing. At this moment, when most Americans have finally pulled their heads out of their hindquarters to oppose the Iraq war and occupation, Barnett counsels libertarians, the vast majority of whom have opposed the war all along, to jump on the pro-war bandwagon! For practical political reasons, no less!

It would be a shame if this misinterpretation [that libertarians uniformly oppose the war on libertarian grounds] inhibited a wider acceptance of the libertarian principles that would promote the general welfare of the American people.

Yes, it sure would suck if the majority of Americans suspected us of sharing their thoughts on a matter of great import.

And try holding down your breakfast as you witness the lap dance Barnett gives Rudy Giuliani:

During that debate, the riveting exchange between Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul about whether American foreign policy provoked the 9/11 attack raised the visibility of both candidates. When Mr. Paul, a libertarian, said that the 9/11 attack happened “because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years,” Mr. Giuliani’s retort–that this was the first time he had heard that “we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. . . . and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11”–sparked a spontaneous ovation from the audience. It was an electrifying moment that allowed one to imagine Mr. Giuliani as a forceful, articulate president.

Articulate? That thuggish, ignorant non-response was articulate?

If I were in my teens or early twenties and searching for a political identity, and I had a typical young person’s knowledge of political theory, this would send me running in disgust from libertarianism. Barnett’s op-ed merely confirms the left-right caricature of libertarianism as a trivia-obsessed offshoot of the GOP — and places support for a stupid, immoral, unpopular war front and center! What’s not to hate?