"As for the enemies of freedom, those who are potential adversaries, they will be reminded that peace is the highest aspiration of the American people. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it; we will not surrender for it, now or ever." - Reagan, January 20, 1981

"In Vietnam, we tried and failed in a just cause. No More Vietnams can mean we will not try again. It should mean we will not fail again." - from No More Vietnams by Richard Nixon

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Truth through Reagan (and a little Pacepa) - Rev. Wright and Soviet propaganda

He simply consumed this stuff willingly before regurgitating it to his congregation.

The first thing to note is that he is a follower of "liberation theology". According to Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa

My first contact with the KGB effort to use religion to expand the Kremlin’s influence abroad took place in 1959. “Religion is the opiate of the people,” I heard Nikita Khrushchev say, citing Marx’s famous dictum, “so let’s give them opium.” The Soviet leader had come to Bucharest together with his spy chief, General Sakharovsky, my de facto boss at that time, who in 1949 had created the Securitate, Romania’s equivalent of the KGB, and became its first Soviet adviser. Khrushchev wanted to discuss a plan for taking over West Berlin, which had become the escape-hatch through which over three million East Europeans had fled to the West.

At that time I was acting chief of the Romanian Mission in West Germany and chief of Romania’s intelligence station there, and as a “German expert,” I attended most of the discussions. “We'll get Berlin,” Khrushchev assured us. His “secret weapon” was Cuba. “When the Yankees learn we’re in Cuba, they’ll forget West Berlin and we’ll take it over as well. Then we’ll use Cuba as springboard to launch a KGB-devised religion into Latin America,” which Khrushchev portrayed as an already besieged citadel that would soon surrender to the Kremlin. Convoluted? Absolutely, but that was how communist tyrants’ minds worked.

Khrushchev called the new KGB-invented religion Liberation Theology. His penchant for “liberation” was inherited by the KGB, which later created the Palestine Liberation Organization, the National Liberation Army of Columbia (FARC), and the National Liberation Army of Bolivia. Romania was a Latin country, and Khrushchev wanted our “Latin view” about his new religious “liberation” war. He also wanted us to send a few priests who were cooptees or deepcover officers to Latin America, to see how “we” could make his new Liberation Theology palatable to that part of the world. Khrushchev got our best effort.


On Sep. 17 2009, he attended a big Marxist conference


At the Monthly Review celebration, however, he went into more detail about his own personal and political philosophy. He said that “My work with liberation theology, with Latin American theologians, with the Black Theology Project and with the Cuban Council of Churches taught me 30 years ago the importance of Marx and the Marxist analysis of the social realities of the vulnerable and the oppressed who were trying desperately to break free of the political economics undergirded by this country that were choking them and cutting off any hope of a possible future where all of the people would benefit.”

He said that his “exposure to the FMLN in El Salvador, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, and my presence at the 15th Jamahiriya in Libya taught me what I have read in the pages of the Monthly Review which is, as Joshua Stanton says, though we need not always agree with one another we must do the work necessary to at least understand one another.”


At during a sermon a few years earlier, he ran trough other "facts" he's learned about, including"

Fact #3: America is the #1 killer in the world. We invaded Grenada for no other reason than to get Maurice Bishop. We invaded Panama because Noriega would not dance to our tune anymore. We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional killers. We bombed Cambodia, Iraq and Nicaragua, killing women and children while trying to get public opinion turned against Castro and Qadaffi.

Fact #4: We put Mandela in prison and supported apartheid the whole 27 years he was there. We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority, and believe it more than we believe in God.

Fact #5: We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians, and called anyone that spoke out against it as being Anti-Semitic.

...

Fact #8: We started the AIDS virus. And now that it is out of control, we still put more money in the military than in medicine, more money in hate than in humanitar[ian] concerns. Everybody does not have access to health care, I don't care what the rich white boys in the city say, brothers.... Listen up, if you are poor, black and elderly, forget it.



Now then, let's start knocking some of these off

Ronald Reagan's autobiography deals with most of his Latin America claims

Shortly after four o'clock Saturday morning, October 22, 1983 Nancy and I were awakened by a telephone call from Bud McFarlane, he said it was urgent that I meet with him and George Shultz immediately. In robe and pajamas, I listened to them explain that the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States had asked us to intervene militarily on the island of Grenada, one of their neighbors in the Caribbean located ninety miles north of Venezuela. In a bloody coup the previous week, Grenada's prime minister, Maurice Bishop, a Marxist protégé of Fidel Castro who had invited Cuban workers to Grenada to build a suspiciously huge new airport on the island, had been executed by leftists who were even more radically committed to Marxism than he was.

The leaders of Grenada's island neighbors - Jamaica, Barbados, St. Vincent's, St. Lucia, Dominica, and Antigua - told us that under Bishop they had been worried by what appeared to be a large Cuban-sponsored military buildup on Grenada vastly disproportionate to its needs; now, they said, these even more radical Marxists in control of Grenada had launched a murderous reign of terror against their enemies. They said that they wanted to join together in ousting the Cubans from Grenada before it was too late, but lacked the military wherewithal to do so, and asked us to join them with them in dislodging the radicals. There was one other thing we had to consider: Eight hundred Americans who attended medical school on Grenada, all of them potential hostages. Under these circumstances, there was only one answer I could give to McFarlane and Shultz and those six countries who asked for our help.

Several days earlier, after the coup and Bishop's execution, I had ordered a flotilla of navy ships that had just left for Lebanon as part of a routine rotation of marines there to make a detour toward Grenada, in case it was needed to evacuate the students. I asked McFarlane how long the Pentagon thought it would need to prepare a rescue mission on Grenada. He said the Joint Chiefs of Staff believed it could be done in forty-eight hours. I said, "Do it."

...

Early the next morning [Oct 25?], after more than nineteen hundred army rangers and marines had landed at two points on Grenada, we announced the news of the Grenada rescue operation to the press. Our forces, despite greater-than-expected resistance, quickly gained control of the island's two airports and secured the campus where the American students were. The Marxists and their Cuban puppeteers were defeated. After I received word that the students were safe and the Marxist neutralized, I wrote in my diary: "Success seems to shine on us and I thank the Lord for it. He has really held me in the hollow of His hand." The price we had to pay to ensure the freedom of the Grenada had been high - nineteen American lives and more than one hundred men injured. But the price would have been much higher if the Soviet Union had been allowed to perpetuate this penetration of our hemisphere. It would have only spread from there.

The Marxists managed to play one dirty trick on us: Atop one hill on the island there was a mental hospital, and near it was a Grenadan army headquarters and barracks. The army installation was one of the legitimate targets of our airplanes. The Marxist thugs took down the flag over their building and raised it over the mental hospital, and as a result planes attacked the hospital until our forces on the ground alerted them to the ruse. We discovered over the next few days that Grenada was far from the balmy resort island it was depicted as in travel brochures. Even more than we had realized, it was already a Soviet-Cuban bastion in the Caribbean. Grenada's neighbors had been right. We got there just in time. Grenada's new airport, with its nine-thousand-foot runway, had been designed not for tourism as Maurice Bishop claimed, but for refueling and servicing Soviet and Cuban military aircraft. The barracks used by the Cuban "workers" on Grenada contained enough weapons and ammunition to equip thousands of terrorists. In the Cuban embassy, we found hollow walls stuffed with more weapons, plus documents linking Grenada's Marxists to Havana and Moscow, including one letter sent six months before by a Soviet general to the commander of the Grenadan army that boasted Grenada could be proud of itself for becoming the third outpost of Communism in the New World - after Cuba and Nicaragua - and adding that soon there would be a fourth, El Salvador.

Our troops brought back this letter and hundreds of other documents proving that the Soviet Union and Cuba had been bankrolling the Marxists on Grenada as part of a scheme to bring Communism to the entire region. The program was just beginning in Grenada; it was intended to go all the way through the Caribbean and Central America. We took this storehouse of documents to a hangar at Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington and invited the press to examine it. Reporters would have found evidence of everything we were saying. But very few did. Instead, for several days, most of the news commentators focused on claims that the landings on Grenada had been reckless. They said I was trying to turn the Caribbean into "another Vietnam" - until it began to sink in that the American people understood what was happening on Grenada and agreed that the operation had been a necessary step to foil Communist penetration of our hemisphere.

...

The people of Grenada greeted our soldiers much as the people of France and Italy welcomed our GIs after they liberated them from Nazism at the end of World War II. The Grenadans had been captives of a totalitarian state just as much as the people of Europe. Later, I went to Grenada and experienced a welcome that showed how deeply the Grenadan people felt about our efforts on their behalf. There were no YANKEE GO HOME signs on Grenada, just an outpouring of love and appreciation from tens of thousands of people - most of its population - and banners proclaiming GOD BLESS AMERICA. I probably never felt better during my presidency than I did that day. I think our decision to stand up to Castro and the brown shirts on Grenada not only stopped the Communists in their tracks in that part of the world but perhaps helped all Americans stand a little taller.


What happened in Panama was similar, with the major distinction that the bad guy in that case was a former ally who turned on us. The claim that the US gov was involved in the drug trade is from a series of baseless news articles that were retracted by the newspaper when the reporter could not produce any hard proof of his claims. And the bombings by American forces were always targeting the enemy - America doesn't intentionally kill civilians like Castro and Qaddafi do. In fact, Wright had gone to meet with Qaddafi in 1984 while he was killing Americans in terrorist attacks, even in Wright's own city! As Reagan wrote

In early May 1981, FBI agents implicated a Libyan terrorist in a Chicago murder and we responded by ordering the Libyan government headed my Muammar al-Qaddafi to close its embassy in Washington. Qaddafi was a madman who was becoming an increasing concern not only to Western democracies but also to moderate Arab regimes and the civilized world at large. Through terrorism, he was trying to unify the world of Islam into a single nation of fundamentalists under rigid religious control. He wanted to create a theocracy, like Iran, that was ruled by priests and mullahs administering an ecclesiastical form of justice that in its most radical forms was regarded by many in the West as barbarous. He was seeking to accomplish his goal using Libya's oil wealth, Russian weapons, and terrorism.

Like the Ayatollah Khomeini, the Iranian despot with whom he was allied and often in contact, Qaddafi was an unpredictable fanatic. He believed any act, no matter how vicious or cold-blooded, was justified to further his goals. Under Bill Casey, whom I had appointed as Director of Central Intelligence, we stepped up covert activities in the region and knew in some detail how the Soviets were supplying arms to Libya and that Qaddafi gave support to a number of non-Libyan terrorist groups around the world.

...

A few days later, President Anwar Sadat of Egypt came to Washington for a state visit. ... Sadat was a very likable man with both a sense of humor and a sense of dignity, and he had a good grasp of events and personalities in the Middle East. He was a staunch ally of the United States and also a courageous statesman whose efforts to achieve peace with Israel had isolated him from most other Arab nations. As had Jimmy Carter, I regarded him as a giant figure in the Middle East and thought he might hold the key to resolving that region's long and bitter struggle between Arab and Jew.

During his visit, Sadat had other things on his mind besides the difficult task of resolving the Arab-Israeli dispute. Terrorists and radical Muslims who were allied with Qaddafi and Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini in trying to create an Islamic fundamentalist state were trying to subvert his government and were making significant inroads in neighboring Sudan and Chad. The goal of Libya and the fundamentalists, Sadat said, was to remove him and impose a government in Egypt modeled after Iran's fundamentalist regime. The Soviet Union, he said, was working hard to gain influence over the Islamic fundamentalist movement and was using Libya as its surrogate in the region, supplying it with large amounts of arms that Libya transferred to terrorists in the Middle East and elsewhere. In response to indications that Libya was building up hostile forces along its border with Egypt, we had agreed to give limited technical assistance and other support to Egypt if Qaddafi did attack.

...

Just two months after Nancy and I said good-bye to Anwar and Jehan Sadat at the White House, I was awakened by an early morning call from Al Haig. He told me Sadat had been shot, but was expected to live. Several hours later we learned he had died instantly, assassinated by Muslim fundamentalists. I had to continue my regular schedule that day, but it was very difficult. The news had hit Nancy and me like a locomotive: we had spent only a few hours over two days with the Sadats, but felt we had formed a deep and lasting friendship with them. Now, suddenly, this great, kind man filled with warmth and humor was gone; it was an enormous tragedy for the world and a terrible and painful personal loss for us.

A few hours after we got news of Sadat's death, I watched Muammar al-Qaddafi on television. He was almost doing a jig, gloating over Sadat's death while Libyans danced in the streets. We discovered that even before Sadat's death was confirmed, Qaddafi had gone on the radio to call for a holy war on behalf of Islamic fundamentalism - propaganda material tied to Sadat's murder that had to have been prepared before the shots were fired in Cairo. He had to have known in advance that Sadat was going to be assassinated. As I prayed for Sadat, I tried to repress the hatred I felt for Qaddafi, but I couldn't do it. I despised him for what had happened in Cairo.

...

In late March [1986], Nancy and I flew to California to spend a few days at the ranch. While we were there, I was awakened late at night by John Poindexter, who said a terrorist's bomb had just exploded at a disco in West Berlin that was a favorite of U.S. servicemen. An American soldier and a Turkish woman had been killed and more than two hundred other people, including at least fifty American servicemen, had been injured in the blast.

Our investigation of the bombing quickly focused on Libya. Qaddafi went on television and condemned it as a senseless act of terrorism against innocent people (which it truly was). In less than a day, our intelligence experts established conclusively that there had been conversations between Libyan diplomats in East Berlin and Qaddafi's headquarters in Tripoli regarding the bombing before and after it occurred. The evidence was irrefutable. Intelligence data provided positive proof that Libya was responsible for the bombing. Our intelligence agencies also obtained information outlining secret plans for additional acts of terrorism by Libya against Americans and people of other countries.

Forewarned, we were able to prevent the attacks. Now that the American oil workers were out of Libya, I knew we had to do something about the crackpot in Tripoli. "He's not only a barbarian, he's flaky," I said at the time. I felt we had no alternative but a military response: As a matter of self-defense, any nation victimized by terrorism has an inherent right to respond with force to deter new acts of terror. I felt we must show Qaddafi that there was a price he would have to pay for that kind of behavior and that we wouldn't let him get away with it.


Next part, WE didn't put Mandela in prison (he was there for a reason, btw, but he was the man to negotiate with and was willing to) and the Reagan administration's ambassador to South Africa actually tried to secure his release, as part of his attempts to end apartheid. Reagan made the record clear in 1986

The root cause of South Africa's disorder is apartheid, that rigid system of racial segregation, wherein black people have been treated as third-class citizens in a nation they helped to build. America's view of apartheid has been and remains clear. Apartheid is morally wrong and politically unacceptable. The United States cannot maintain cordial relations with a government whose power rests upon the denial of rights to a majority of its people based on race. If South America [South Africa] wishes to belong to the family of Western nations, an end to apartheid is a precondition. Americans, I believe, are united in this conviction. Second, apartheid must be dismantled. Time is running out for the moderates of all races in South Africa. But if we Americans are agreed upon the goal, a free and multiracial South Africa associated with free nations and the West, there is deep disagreement about how to reach it.

First, a little history: For a quarter century now, the American Government has been separating itself from the South African Government. In 1962 President Kennedy imposed an embargo on military sales. Last September I issued an Executive order further restricting U.S. dealings with the Pretoria Government. For the past 18 months the marketplace has been sending unmistakable signals of its own. U.S. bank lending to South Africa has been virtually halted. No significant new investment has come in. Some Western businessmen have packed up and gone home.

And now we've reached a critical juncture. Many in Congress and some in Europe are clamoring for sweeping sanctions against South Africa. The Prime Minister of Great Britain has denounced punitive sanctions as ``immoral'' and ``utterly repugnant.'' Well, let me tell you why we believe Mrs. Thatcher is right. The primary victims of an economic boycott of South Africa would be the very people we seek to help. Most of the workers who would lose jobs because of sanctions would be black workers. We do not believe the way to help the people of South Africa is to cripple the economy upon which they and their families depend for survival.

...

Looking at a map, southern Africa is a single economic unit tied together by rails and roads. Zaire and its southern mining region depends upon South Africa for three-fourths of her food and petroleum. More than half the electric power that drives the capital of Mozambique comes from South Africa. Over one-third of the exports from Zambia and 65 percent of the exports of Zimbabwe leave the continent through South African ports. The mines of South Africa employ 13,000 workers from Swaziland, 19,000 from Botswana, 50,000 from Mozambique, and 110,000 from the tiny, landlocked country of Lesotho. Shut down these productive mines with sanctions and you have forced black mine workers out of their jobs and forced their families back in their home countries into destitution. I don't believe the American people want to do something like that.

...

Wherever blacks seek equal opportunity, higher wages, better working conditions, their strongest allies are the American, British, French, German, and Dutch businessmen who bring to South Africa ideas of social justice formed in their own countries. If disinvestment is mandated, these progressive Western forces will depart; and South African proprietors will inherit, at fire sale prices, their farms and factories and plants and mines. And how would this end apartheid? Our own experience teaches us that racial progress comes swiftest and easiest, not during economic depression, but in times of prosperity and growth. Our own history teaches us that capitalism is the natural enemy of such feudal institutions as apartheid.

Nevertheless, we share the outrage Americans have come to feel. Night after night, week after week, television has brought us reports of violence by South African security forces, bringing injury and death to peaceful demonstrators and innocent bystanders. More recently, we read of violent attacks by blacks against blacks. Then there is the calculated terror by elements of the African National Congress: the mining of roads, the bombings of public places, designed to bring about further repression, the imposition of martial law, eventually creating the conditions for racial war. The most common method of terror is the so-called necklace. In this barbaric way of reprisal, a tire is filled with kerosene or gasoline, placed around the neck of an alleged collaborator, and ignited. The victim may be a black policeman, a teacher, a soldier, a civil servant. It makes no difference. The atrocity is designed to terrorize blacks into ending all racial cooperation and to polarize South Africa as prelude to a final, climactic struggle for power.

...

Many Americans, understandably, ask: Given the racial violence, the hatred, why not wash our hands and walk away from that tragic continent and bleeding country? Well, the answer is: We cannot. In southern Africa our national ideals and strategic interests come together. South Africa matters because we believe that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights. South Africa matters because of who we are. One of eight Americans can trace his ancestry to Africa.

Strategically, this is one of the most vital regions of the world. Around the Cape of Good Hope passes the oil of the Persian Gulf, which is indispensable to the industrial economies of Western Europe. Southern Africa and South Africa are the repository of many of the vital minerals -- vanadium, manganese, chromium, platinum -- for which the West has no other secure source of supply. The Soviet Union is not unaware of the stakes. A decade ago, using an army of Cuban mercenaries provided by Fidel Castro, Moscow installed a client regime in Angola. Today the Soviet Union is providing that regime with the weapons to attack UNITA, a black liberation movement which seeks for Angolans the same right to be represented in their government that black South Africans seek for themselves.

Apartheid threatens our vital interests in southern Africa, because it's drawing neighboring states into the vortex of violence. Repeatedly, within the last 18 months, South African forces have struck into neighboring states. I repeat our condemnation of such behavior. Also the Soviet-armed guerrillas of the African National Congress, operating both within South Africa and from some neighboring countries, have embarked upon new acts of terrorism inside South Africa. I also condemn that behavior. But South Africa cannot shift the blame for these problems onto neighboring states, especially when those neighbors take steps to stop guerrilla actions from being mounted from their own territory.

...

let me outline what we believe are necessary components of progress toward political peace.

First, a timetable for elimination of apartheid laws should be set. Second, all political prisoners should be released. Third, Nelson Mandela should be released to participate in the country's political process. Fourth, black political movements should be unbanned. Fifth, both the Government and its opponents should begin a dialog about constructing a political system that rests upon the consent of the governed, where the rights of majorities and minorities and individuals are protected by law. And the dialog should be initiated by those with power and authority: the South African Government itself. Sixth, if postapartheid South Africa is to remain the economic locomotive of southern Africa, its strong and developed economy must not be crippled.


(more evidence of Soviet-ANC ties can be seen in an ANC Public document released the previous year in which they endorse the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Cuban invasion of Angola, the North Vietnamese invasion of the South, the communist movements in Africa and Central America and the PLO's war on Israel)


As for opposition to "Zionism", Reagan spoke about this in a joint appearance with President Herzog of Israel in 1987

Mr. President, we cannot meet on this day without noting the special significance it has for the Jewish people. On November 10th, 1983, a half-century ago—1938, I should say, a half century ago, the Nazis let loose a reign of terror against the German Jewry that is remembered as the infamous "crystal night." And on November 10th, 1975, the General Assembly of the United Nations passed an obscene resolution equating Zionism and racism. Both of these ugly actions share a common denominator: anti-Semitism; but there is a major difference between them. In 1938 the State of Israel did not yet exist. In 1975 a proud and resolute Israeli Ambassador rose up in the United Nations to uphold the honor of Israel and the high principles on which the United Nations is founded.

The Ambassador, of course, was you, sir, and it will always be a source of pride for all Americans that on that day our own Ambassador to the United Nations stood squarely at your side. That's how it was, Mr. President, and that's how it will be. For the people of Israel and America are historic partners in the global quest for human dignity and freedom. We will always remain at each other's side.


Gen. Pacepa wrote about the 1975 resolution in 2005

I spent two decades of my other life as a Communist spy chief, struggling to transform the U.N. into a kind of international socialist republic. The Communist bloc threw millions of dollars and thousands of people into that gigantic project. According to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, all employees from Eastern Bloc nations were involved in espionage. The task of this espionage army was not to steal secrets but to use the U.N. to convert the historical Arab and Islamic hatred of the Jews into a new hatred for Israel’s main supporter, the United States. The U.N. became our petri dish, in which we nurtured a virulent strain of hatred for America, grown from the bacteria of Communism, anti-Semitism, nationalism, jingoism, and victimology.

During the years I was Nicolae Ceausescu’s national-security adviser I learned that petty tyrants cannot be handled with kid gloves. You need an iron fist.

John Bolton not only acts forcefully, he also gets results. He singlehandedly brought about the repeal of U.N. Resolution 3379 of 1975, which stigmatized Zionism as “a form of racism and racial discrimination. That resolution was the Soviet bloc’s first major “victory” at the U.N. Soon after it was adopted, the Communists unleashed a vitriolic disinformation campaign portraying the U.S. as a rapacious Zionist country run by a greedy “Council of the Elders of Zion” (a derisive epithet for the U.S. Congress) that was plotting to transform the rest of the world into a Jewish fiefdom.

U.N. Resolution 3379 lasted 16 years—until Bolton came along. In December 1991, this unknown undersecretary of State had the guts to tell the General Assembly of the U.N. that it had been manipulated by the Communists, and to ask its members to wake up. Bolton was so well-armed with documentation, so bold, and so straightforward that he forced the U.N. to repeal its own resolution by the great margin of 111 to 25. Even my native Romania, until then the epitome of Communism, voted with Bolton.


Lastly, the claim that we created AIDS is complete Soviet propaganda

In March 1992, then-Russian foreign intelligence chief (and later Russian Prime Minister) Yevgeni Primakov admitted that the KGB had concocted the AIDS-made-by-Pentagon story. The Russian newspaper Izvestiya reported on March 19, 1992:

[Primakov] mentioned the well known articles printed a few years ago in our central newspapers about AIDS supposedly originating from secret Pentagon laboratories. According to Yevgeni Primakov, the articles exposing US scientists’ “crafty” plots were fabricated in KGB offices.


And that is that.

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Israel-South Africa nuke cooperation is old news - in Ostrovsky's 1990 book; 1983 CIA NIE

Israel-South Africa nuke cooperation reported yesterday is not news to people who either payed attention during the time (I wasn't alive yet) or bothered to do any in depth reading about either of the two nations' nuclear programs.

This is from the 1990 paperback edition of Ex-Mossad officer Victor Oskrovsky's "By way of Deception"



It was also reported in a 1983 CIA NIE, and the mysterious Sep 22 1979 detonation was also discussed in a different report dated Dec 1979.

Monday, May 24, 2010

Screw Red China! V.2 and "The sick man of Yalta"

I've written posts about FDR's sickness during Yalta and the commie butchers of Beijing. But there is now a great article tying them both.

For a quick review of both these topics, see the videos below

"Sick man of Yalta"


Mao the pig and the reds

(For a longer and more in depth history, see this video)



So, here is the article by Dr. Lomazow

Where Roosevelt’s health did have a significant impact at Yalta was with respect to China. On February 8, 1945 at 3:30 pm, Joseph Stalin walked into a private meeting with Roosevelt and in thirty minutes, without the knowledge or consent of its leader, took everything that China had spent fourteen years and over twenty million lives fighting for. It is unlikely that a mentally intact president would have agreed to such an accommodation. The implications with respect to future American/Chinese/Soviet relations were monumental.

In October 1943, Stalin informed Secretary of State Cordell Hull that the Soviets would enter the war against Japan as soon as Germany was defeated and asked for nothing in return, reaffirming this promise at Teheran a few weeks later. Despite this, a secret agreement, specifically excluded from the final communiqué, was drafted and signed by the heads of the three Yalta participants, with the consent of American General George Marshall, Admirals King and Leahy, but over the objection of British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden:

In return for the Soviets entering the war against Japan:

1. The status quo in Outer Mongolia shall be preserved:
2. The former rights of Russia violated by the treacherous attack of Japan in 1904 shall be restored, viz: (a) the southern portion of Sakhalin as well as all the islands adjacent to it be returned to the Soviet Union, (b) the commercial port of Dairen shall be internationalized, the pre-eminent interests of the Soviet Union in this port being safeguarded and the lease of Port Arthur as a naval base of the U.S.S.R. restored, (c) the Chinese-Eastern Railroad and Southern Manchurian Railroad which provides an outlet to Dairen shall be jointly operated by the establishment of a joint Soviet-Chinese Company it being understood that the pre-eminent interests of the Soviet Union shall be safeguarded and that China shall retain full sovereignty in Manchuria
3. The Kurile Islands shall be handed over to the Soviet Union.


It is understood, that the agreement concerning Outer Mongolia and the ports and railroads referred to above will require concurrence (emphasis added) of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek. The President [sic] will take measures in order to obtain this concurrence on advice from Marshall [sic] Stalin.

The heads of the Three Great Powers have agreed that these claims of the Soviet Union shall be unquestionably fulfilled after Japan has been defeated.

For its part the Soviet Union expresses readiness to conclude with the National Government of China a pact of friendship and alliance between the U.S.S.R. and China in order to render assistance to China with its armed forces for the purpose of liberating China from the Japanese yoke.


As Don Lohbeck succinctly underscores:

By this agreement “Roosevelt and Churchill signed to the Soviet Union not only “pre-eminent interests” in the great Manchurian port of Dairen and full control of the naval base which protects it, but also “pre-eminent interests” in the railroads which lead from the Soviet Union to Dairen and split Manchuria from the northwest to the south.


Stalin’s intentions about Manchuria were quite clear, evidenced by the statement “the President [sic] will take measures in order to obtain this concurrence on advice from Marshall [sic] Stalin,” that refers directly to a delay, agreed to by Roosevelt (on the pretense of a possible security leak in the Chiang Government), in even informing Chiang of the agreement until after the Soviets had transferred twenty-five divisions to the Manchurian border. These troops would ultimately serve to secure the surrender of Japanese war materiel to Communist forces, directly contrary to the American policy that only the Nationalists should receive them.

The China agreement was excluded from the final official protocol of the conference. Likewise, no mention of it, or China whatsoever, was made by Roosevelt in his March 1 report to Congress, despite its having the most radical and long-standing influence upon the future of the world of any decision made at Yalta. Roosevelt instead cryptically announced:

I think the Crimean Conference … ought to spell the end of the system of unilateral action the exclusive alliances the spheres of influence, the balances of power and all the other expedients that have been tried for centuries – and have always failed.


The exact opposite was the case. Worse yet, the two Americans with the greatest understanding of the long-term consequences of the agreement, Ambassador to China Patrick Hurley and Chiang’s chief of staff, General Albert C. Wedemeyer, were not present or previously consulted! It was also withheld from Douglas MacArthur, the military commander of the Pacific theatre.

Aware of it were Averill Harriman, who facilitated the negotiations, translator and future Ambassador Charles “Chip” Bohlen, State Department advisor (and later convicted Soviet spy) Alger Hiss, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, including George Marshall, who had demanded Soviet entry into the Pacific war at any price. It was also soon known to pro-communist and pro-imperialist members of the State Department. Roosevelt’s close advisor at Yalta and future secretary of state in the Truman administration, James F. “Jimmy” Byrnes, was kept completely in the dark.

After getting wind of the agreement, Hurley set out for Washington. The State Department “told him that no such agreement had been made” (emphasis in text). With his characteristic Oklahoma cowboy panache, “with my ears back and my teeth skinned, to have a fight about what had been done,” he went to the White House. He had not seen Roosevelt for over six months and was taken aback by the president’s physical condition. “When the President [sic] reached up that fine, firm, strong hand of his to shake hands with me, what I found in my hand was a very loose bag of bones… the skin seemed to be pasted down on his cheek-bones; and you know, all the fight I had in me went out.”

At first, Roosevelt flatly denied that any agreement had been made. Hurley refused to blame his leader for the blunder:

The sickness of death was already upon President Roosevelt when he attended the Yalta Conference… I am certain that he believed he was telling the truth when he said that no secret agreement such as I described had been entered into at Yalta.


Afterwards, he met with continued resistance from the pro-communist elements in the State Department, claiming that by accepting British and Soviet spheres of influence, FDR had repudiated the principles of the Atlantic Charter and being “taken advantage of [in] (his) physical and mental condition, just as he had been imposed at Yalta (emphasis in text).”

On into March, Hurley continued to press the issue, finally prevailing upon Roosevelt to allow him to examine the records from Yalta, in turn discovering the secret “Agreement Regarding Japan” that he perceived as “secretly sabotaging, setting aside and cancelling every principle and objective for which the United States professed to be fighting World War II. He questioned the right of America to give away portions of territory of another sovereign nation.”

The president admitted that Hurley’s fears appeared justified and gave him a special directive to go to London and Moscow to speak with Churchill and Stalin to “ameliorate the betrayal of China and return to the traditional American policy in the Far East.”

In a letter to Atlantic Monthly on September 28, 1950, Hurley wrote:

There is a tendency now to charge the Yalta Secret Agreement to President Roosevelt. President Roosevelt is dead, but I can say that he is not guilty. He was a very sick man at Yalta,* and the surrender of China to the Communists in the Secret Agreement of Yalta was engineered by the officials of the American State Department under the brilliant leadership of a young American, Alger Hiss.


Wedemeyer had a similar experience. Accompanying Hurley on his return from China in February, after stopping en route to meet with MacArthur in Manila, he arrived in Washington in March to meet with his commander-in-chief. Like Hurley, he was “shocked” at Roosevelt’s physical appearance and demeanor. Catching the president in the midst of one of his frequent seizures:

His color was ashen, his face drawn and his jaw drooping. I had difficulty in conveying information to him because he seemed in a daze. Several times I repeated the same idea because his mind did not seem to retain or register.


As Roosevelt’s mind began to clear, conversation turned to active support of independence of Indochina from the French, then to China itself. The president mentioned that Chiang had sent communications in praise of Wedemeyer’s efforts and Wedemeyer, in turn, expressed confidence that Chiang had been most cooperative in supporting Chinese participation in the war effort. When he raised the issue that the Communists would undoubtedly cause problems as soon as the war ended, he noted “(Roosevelt) did not seem to understand what I was talking about.”

Shortly afterwards, Wedemeyer met over lunch with Secretary of War Stimson, reassuring him of Chiang’s sincerity in restoring order to China despite a less than optimal knowledge of modern military techniques. He also signed off on Ambassador Hurley’s efforts to remove certain (pro-communist) members of his staff at the embassy. The secretary then pressed him for his opinion on Roosevelt’s health, to which he replied that he was “shocked to find that the President [sic] seemed to be in Never-Never land” most of the time he spent with him, picking nervously at his food and going off on tangents. Then, “the Secretary admonished me not to mention the President’s [sic] physical condition to anyone.”

Even the staunch Roosevelt supporter Robert Sherwood, while unabashedly defending Roosevelt’s decisions at Yalta concerning Poland and the United Nations, admitted:

Only at the end of seven days of long meetings, covering a wide range of tremendous subjects, did he make a concession which, in my belief, he would not have made if he had not been tired out and anxious to the negotiations relative to Russia’s entry into the war with Japan.


He further sustained the objection of diplomat Sumner Welles, quoting him directly:

[T]he restoration to Russia of the right formerly possessed by the Imperial Russian Govermnents to dominate Manchuria through control of the Chinese Eastern and Southern Manchurian railroads, and the lease of Port Arthur as a naval base….make it altogether impossible for a new unified China to exercise full sovereignty within Manchuria, all the more objectionable in view of China’s absence from the conference table where they were decided.

Sherwood cited the statement “the heads of the Three Great Powers have agreed that these claims of the Soviet Union shall be unquestionably fulfilled after Japan has been defeated,” as “the most assailable point in the entire Yalta record,” noting “if China had refused to agree to any of the Soviet claims, presumably the U.S. and Britain would have been compelled to join in enforcing them.”

An enhanced knowledge of Franklin Roosevelt’s health is essential to the understanding of the processes of his decision making. Nowhere is this more evident than with the events that occurred at and following Yalta.

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Screw you Red China! We're not sorry

Recently, Obama's Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner apologized to Red China for OUR human rights violations(?) and joined them in condeming OUR record(?).

I want to make clear that the way, WAY too many Maoists in this administration do not speak for me on this.

I want to remind everybody of what Red China is, and learn know why I say SCREW YOU RED CHINA! WE'RE NOT SORRY

Monday, May 17, 2010

Rush recounts the true story of when leftists brought homeless to the USSR, who know true poverty




Rush:

[B]ack in the early eighties some radical left-wing homeless advocates arranged to have a group of homeless from the US tour the Soviet Union. I remember talking about this when I was on the air in Sacramento, and I was stunned. We're actually going to take a group of homeless people -- we're going to put 'em on an airplane, feed 'em, clothe 'em, whatever -- take them to the Soviet Union to have a forum on homelessness in America in the Soviet Union, the land of Soviet communism. At their very first forum, a Russian in the audience asked one of the homeless men what he did for a living, what was his job. When the homeless man replied he didn't have a job, that he hadn't had a job in years, the audience -- the Soviet audience -- was incredulous.

They could not believe that he was complaining about being homeless when he didn't even bother to work, and the Russian audience walked out of the presentation disgusted and said, "What are we here for? You want us to feel sorry for a bunch of people that are homeless and they don't work?" So what we had, even back then, the Ted Kennedy types in the Democrat Party were trying to paint America as a rotten-to-the-core place, and they packed up a bunch of our homeless people and took them over to Russia. Because we have to be worse than Russia. We have to be worse than the Soviet Union, and the Soviet citizens said, "Well, I can understand you don't have a home if you don't work." They walked out in disgust. If we took a group of homeless people over to Beijing and had a forum, if the regime takes 'em over there, I wonder if the same thing would happen.

"Well, why are you homeless? How long have you been homeless?"

"I've been homeless for years."

"Well, what is your job?"

"Well, I don't have a job."

"Well, then what are you complaining about?"

That's essentially what the Soviet citizens were saying.




As he says later: "I make a statement totally true that poverty in this country is luxury in many places around the world, and they get angry at me."

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

The 1970s: The Age of Terror - The Communists' Proxy War Offensive Against The Western Bloc - Part 2: Raising the stakes

On the same day that oil tanks belonging to Gulf Oil were destroyed in Holland, five Jordanians accused of collaborating with Israel where assassinated near the city of Cologne, Germany. Within a month, in the German city of Hamburg, a factory of a firm making engines for Israel and the Esso Oil pipeline were damaged. This was the ominous opening for the year of 1972.



The group responsible for the attacks of early that year, was an emerging group was called Black September, a PLO front group made up of the elite fighters of Fatah. The leadership of the group consisted of Abu Iyad and his handpicked team of Ahmed Afghani, Ghazi el Husseini and an Egyptian intelligence trained group of Fakhri al Umari, Ali Hassan Salameh and Abu Daoud.

In May, four Black September terrorists hijacked a Sabena flight from Brussels to Tel Aviv, hoping to free their comrades from Israeli jails. But Israeli special forces stormed the plane, killing or capturing all the terrorists and freeing every passenger. That same month a plot to assassinate Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir when she traveled to Communist Romania to meet "President" Ceausescu was foiled by the Romanian secret police (DIE) when the four man hit team was arrested on arrival. Ceausescu's policy, according to him General Pacepa, was to deceave the west into believing he was a moderate leader in the communist bloc who they could work with, and the foiling of the plot on Meir saved him major embarrassment - for the moment.



In order to avoid incident, the four terrorists were treated to dinner, secretly photographed and sent given one way airline tickets back to the middle east. From the photographs the DIE were able to identify the leader of the team as Abu Daoud.

Arafat, by Abu Daoud's account, desperate to boost morale in the refugee camps by showing that Israel was vulnerable.

On July 15

Abu Daoud and Abu Iyad joined another Black September leader, Abu Mohammed, at a café in Rome's Piazza della Rotonda. Leafing through an Arabic newspaper, they spotted a report that the IOC had failed even to respond to two requests from the Palestinian Youth Federation that Palestine be permitted to take to Munich an Olympic team of its own. "If they refuse to let us participate, why shouldn't we penetrate the Games in our own way?" Abu Mohammed asked.


Their plan, according to Abu Daoud was to Kidnap the Israeli Olympic Team (he claims that "Israeli team is not civilian and each member of the team is an officer in the Israeli army and had committed killings against Palestinians.") before the whole world and exchange the Israeli hostages for Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. They gave their plan the code name Biraam and Ikrit, after two Palestinian villages from which Zionists had evicted Arab residents in 1948.

Two days later Abu Daoud was in Munich to reconnoiter the Olympic Village, then still under construction. He made a study and was "convinced of the possibility of carrying out the operation.'" After a week Abu Daoud went to Beirut and told Abu Iyad that he had studied the plan. "the [Munich] operation had the endorsement of Arafat."

Evidence of the activities of the PLO leadership between July and September 5th is piecemeal, but the following can be infered:

- According to Pacepa's recalling conversations with Arafat in October of 1972, Arafat said his "most devoted personal friend and my closest collaborator...", Hani al-Hassan, who according to KGB documents had secretly been a KGB agent since 1968, was "the brain" who had "prepared our [PLO] answer to the Olympic Committee's decision not to allow a team of Palestinian athletes to participate in the Munich games", began to coordinate the operation.

- According to his interview for One Day in September, Jamal Al-Gashey, a young Palestinian who, like Abu Daoud, joined the PLO after the Six-Day War, war sent to Libya for what was to him a mysterious type of advanced training.

- According to Clair Sterling's scrupulously researched masterpiece The Terror Network, Ali Hassan Salameh traveled to Europe and "arranged for Germany's ultra-left Revolutionary Cells to set things up for the Palistinian hit-team in Munich".

- According to Abu Daoud, Planning the operation took three weeks and cost 5,000 dollars without the plane tickets. Five hundred dollars of the amount was returned to the financial apparatus of Fatah which was headed then by the current Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas without his knowing anything about the operation. "I stayed in Lebanon many days and returned to Munich. I started preparations and studied all aspects, then asked Abu Iyad to send me the commandos," Abu Daoud said. He was holding an Iraqi passport at the time.

- According to One Day in September, Jamal Al-Gashey and the rest of the Black September terrorists flew to Rome from Algiers and traveled by train to Munich. Ali Hassan Salameh traveled to East Berlin and set up a command post.

- At 9 p.m., on September 4th, the Palestinians gathered at a restaurant in the train station for final instructions. Sometime after 3:30 a.m., September 5th, they took off in taxis for the Village. As they approached the fence, they noticed another group in warmup gear: American athletes back from a night on the town, laughing and tipsy. Abu Daoud urged his comrades to join them, to use the Americans' innocent comportment as cover while they all scaled the fence. "Not only did our men mix in with the Americans, we helped them over," he says. "And they helped us. 'Hey, man, give me your bag.' This was surreal -- to see the Americans, obviously far from imagining they were helping Black September get into the Village." With help from Stasi agents attached to the East German Olympic delegation, the terrorists made their way to the to the room of the Israeli weightlifting team.


And the rest is history


and the response came quick (sources include the sunday times and Ex-Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky)

Ankie Spitzer, the widow of the murdered Israeli Olympic fencing coach, remembers what she and other relatives were told by the prime minister, Golda Meir. "She said, 'I'll make you a promise. . . I promise we will hunt down those that have blood on their hands in this massacre. We will' — and she said literally — 'we will hunt them down to all corners of the Earth.'" Ehud Barak confirms it. "There was no real doubt," he says, "about Golda Meir's decision to order basically the elimination of those people who were responsible." ...

A secret, fast-track bureaucratic chain was set up between Mossad's professional assassins and a panel of ministers, Committee X, that met to sanction each killing. "It was something like a week or two after the attack in Munich," says another hit man, a former army colonel whom we must call officer K. "The head of Mossad said something like, 'Israel is not going to stand still. We are going to get whoever did this, and you will be the stretched arm of this office.'"






[T]he first hit took place on October 16, 1972, just 41 days after the athletes were kidnapped. Its target was Wael Zwaiter, a translator at the Libyan embassy in Rome, who lived unostentatiously in the northern suburbs. ... after an evening with his Australian girlfriend, Zwaiter entered the lobby of his apartment block and pressed the call button for the lift. ... [Mossad Officer G said] "We shot him in the entrance to the elevator. Two full magazines. . . "

In November 1972, in order to shift the mood away from terror, Meir, with the Vatican's approval, began to organize a visit to Rome, planed for January 1973, to seek an audience with the Pope. But the PLO learned about the scedualed plans from agents inside Vatican circles. When the information reached Abu Iyad he contacted Salameh, who was in East Germany, and they agreed to attempt to assassinate "the one who is spilling our blood all over Europe." Later that November, an Israeli informer within the PLO tipped the Mossad about an operation targeting "one of yours" that would involve special equipment, which would have to be smuggled into Italy.

The death of the second victim, Mahmoud Hamshiri, in Paris in early December, raised the game to a new level. For the Israelis, the outcome had to be more than a blow to the PLO's human resources: there had to be a blow to its psyche too. "We wanted to make them afraid of being a terrorist," says David Kimche, a former deputy head of Mossad who was directly involved in the hits. ... What [Mossad's Keshet ("Rainbow") burglary unit] did was photograph Hamshiri's marble telephone table and remove a small sliver from it. Craftsmen in Tel Aviv then built a replica with plastic explosive inside, and it was this that was smuggled into the apartment. Outside, the surveillance team watched and waited. Three days later, at 9.25am, they reported that Hamshiri's wife and daughter were out and that he was alone in the flat. A telephone call lured him to the table and the bomb was detonated.

In East Germany, Salameh had devised a plot to shoot down Meir's plane upon landing in Rome using Russian-made infra-red guided SA-7 "Strella" missiles, which were available to the PLO in their training camps inside Yugoslavia. Salameh hired three Germans to take a yacht from Italy to Yugoslavia, pick up wooden boxes, and return to Italy. After the task was complete and the boxes were unloaded, the PLO killed the Germans and sank the yacht.

In the meantime, the Israeli mole in the PLO, Akbar, who had been spotted by another member of the PLO at the November meeting with Mossad agents in France, unknowingly became a key part of Black September's plot. As Victor Ostrovsky recounts (based heavely on PLO Documents captured in Lebanon in 1982), in Beirut, Black September leader Abu Yusuf learned about Akbar but decided that,
rather than kill him right away and perhaps jeopardize the whole operation, Yusuf decided he'd use this knowledge to throw the Israelis off the track. While he knew they were aware that they'd been targeted, they didn't know how because Akbar had had only limited knowledge of the operation. "We will have to do something that will make the Israelis say, 'Ah, that's what it was,'" Yusuf told his officials. Which is why, on December 28, 1972, less than three weeks before Meir's scheduled January 15 visit to Rome, Meir's scheduled January 15 visit to Rome, Black September staged what at the time was seen as an inexplicable raid on the Israeli embassy in Bangkok, Thailand. ... Just to make sure the Mossad did fall for the diversion, Akbar was told by his PLO associates prior to the Thailand affair to stay in Rome for the moment, but that the operation was slated for a country well outside the usual terrorist battleground of Europe or the Middle East. Naturally, Akbar passed this information to the Mossad, so that when the Bangkok attack took place, headquarters in Tel Aviv was not only convinced that this had been the operation in question, but overjoyed that no Israelis had died or even been hurt. There was quite an uproar within the Mossad over the fact that there had been a warning of such an attack, but the location had not been pinpointed. There was an even larger tremor within the Shaback, which is responsible for thesecurity of Israeli embassies and installations abroad. Akbar was certainly convinced that Bangkok had been the target all along, so he contacted his katsa to bring as much documentation as he could from the PLO safe house. The meeting would be held in a small village south of Rome, but it began in the usual way — sending Akbar to a Rome trattoria — and followed standard APAM procedures from there. What wasn't standard, however, was the result of the meeting. When Akbar was shoved into the katsa's car and his briefcase tossed to the front seat in the usual way, the security man opened it. The car instantly blew up, killing Akbar, the katsa, and both security men. The driver survived, but was injured so badly that he remains a vegetable today. ... As it turned out, the PLO made a mistake by killing Akbar before the Meir operation. They could easily have waited until he had returned to London. Even though the Mossad would have known who killed him, it wouldn't have particularly mattered to them at that point.

... Mark Hessner, head of the Rome station, had been completely taken in by the PLO's Bangkok ruse. But in Milan, Shai Kauly remained convinced there was something wrong with that scenario. Kauly was a determined, studious man with a well-earned reputation as a stickler for details. Sometimes it was a liability. He once held up an urgent message, for example, so that a grammatical error could be corrected. But more often, his meticulousness was an asset. On this occasion, Kauly's persistence would save Golda Meir's life. He kept going over and over all the reports concerning Akbar and related PLO activities. It made no sense to him that the attack in Bangkok was the same thing that Akbar had talked about: why would it have involved smuggling technical materials into Italy? Then, when Akbar was killed, Kauly became even more suspicious. Why would they kill him unless they knew he was an Israeli agent? But if they did know, then the Bangkok attack must have been a hoax, Kauly reasoned. ... As often happens in such situations, Kauly's biggest break came from a most unexpected source. A multilingual and mega-talented woman in Brussels kept an apartment at the behest of PLO fighters seeking a temporary haven in the ongoing war against Israel. A high-priced hooker, she was an imaginative PLO playmate. ... the Mossad bugged both her phone and her apartment [and] ... Just a few days before Meir's scheduled arrival in Rome, someone — Kauly thought it was Salameh, although he was never positive — in the Brussels apartment told the woman he had to phone Rome. He told the party who answered to "clear the apartment and take all 14 cakes."

Sunday, May 9, 2010

The roots of Obama's view on Iran - Vendetta against the Shah


I did criticize the President [Carter] because of our undercutting of what was a stalwart ally—the Shah of Iran. And I am not at all convinced that he was that far out of line with his people or that they wanted that to happen. The Shah had done our bidding and carried our load in the Middle East for quite some time, and I did think that it was a blot on our record that we let him down. Have things gotten better? The Shah, whatever he might have done, was building low-cost housing, had taken land away from the Mullahs and was distributing it to the peasants so they could be landowners—things of that kind. But we turned it over to a maniacal fanatic who has slaughtered thousands and thousands of people, calling it executions. - President Reagan, Debate with Walter Mondale (Defense and Foreign Policy) (October 21, 1984)


There are 2 instances where Obama's distain for the Shah is evident

1.) Expressing his belief in the myths about Mossadegh and 1953 during his June 4, 2009 speech in Cairo



So the popular mantra goes

Obama admits US involvement in 1953 Iran coup
(AFP) – Jun 4, 2009

CAIRO (AFP) — US President Barack Obama made a major gesture of conciliation to Iran on Thursday when he admitted US involvement in the 1953 coup which overthrew the government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh.

"In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government," Obama said in a keynote speech to the Muslim world in Cairo.

It was the first time a serving US president had publicly admitted American involvement in the coup.

The US Central Intelligence Agency, with British backing, masterminded the coup after Mossadegh nationalised the oil industry, run until then by the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

For many Iranians, the coup demonstrated duplicity by the United States, which presented itself as a defender of freedom but did not hesitate to use underhand methods to get rid of a democratically elected government to suit its own economic and strategic interests.

Washington went on to become the major backer of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was overthrown in the Islamic revolution of 1979.

Relations between the two countries have been severed ever since the revolution's aftermath and former president George W. Bush made the Tehran government part of his "axis of evil" with Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Stalinist North Korea.

But since he took office earlier this year, Obama has made repeated overtures to Iran, offering it a dialogue on its nuclear programme and other outstanding issues.

On Thursday Obama did not conceal the extent of the differences between the two governments but emphasised his readiness to try to overcome them through diplomacy.

"For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is in fact a tumultuous history between us," the US president said.

"Since the Islamic revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against US troops and civilians. This history is well known.

"Rather than remain trapped in the past, I've made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question now is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build."

Shortly after Obama's inauguration on January 20, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad demanded apologies for "crimes" he said the United States had committed against Iran, starting with the 1953 coup.

Arab American Institute President James Zogby said that although Obama's admission of US involvement in the coup added little to historical knowledge as it was already well known, it remained an important gesture to Iran.

"There is no surprise," Zogby said when asked about the fact of CIA involvement,
But he added that Obama's admission of it was a "very important statement, it's the beginning of closing the chapter."


[UPDATE: Turns out that it was Ground Zero mosque imam Feisal Abdul Rauf who had input into the writing of Obama's speech, and he had rehashed the 1953 lies a week or so after Obama's speech in an effort to justify the mullahs' sham-election fraud and brutalizing of students who dared to speak out freely.]


This must have come from one of Obama's "many talks with the Khalidis" that "had been 'consistent reminders to me [Obama] of my own blind spots and my own biases [about the middle east]...'", since his buddy Rashid Khalidi seems to like this 1953 mantra within it's broader "Blame America" context.

The problem, as I said, is that it's not true.

[ANOTHER UPDATE: I posted an excerpt from Amir Taheri's book "The Persian Night" that tackles this myth as effectively as I have seen]

First off, Mossadegh was not "democraticly elected". This is well documented for anyone who bothers to look up Iranian government practice at that time. This is best articulated in the form of a comment on an iranian.com post from November 2009

In April 1951 the Shah appointed Mossadegh as prime minister through the same constitutional process that all the prime minsters before and since had gone through: a vote of inclination by Majles followed by the royal appointment. Therefore, Mossadegh was appointed as prime minister and not elected. If his appointment was supposed to have been democratic so were the appointments of ALL his predecessors and quite a few of his successors.


Number two, the CIA barely had any role in it. Consider the word of those who were there or were close to those who were there

THE CIA AND IRAN - WHAT REALLY HAPPENED
Ardeshir Zahedi

...

Mossadegh had been abandoned by many of his former colleagues, among them such personalities as Hussein Makki and Mozzafar Baqai, and opposed by parties that had provided the backbone of his support in 1951.
The most prominent members of the Shiite clerical establishment, including the Ayatollahs Borujerdi, Hakim, Shahresetani and Kashani were solidly opposed by Mossadegh and wanted the Shah to remove him. They were all in contact with my father and supported him in their struggle against Mussadeq.
A leading member of the Majlis (parliament) Hassan Haeri-Zadeh, who had been one of Mossadegh’s strongest supporters until then, even cabled the United nations secretary general to appeal for help against Mossadegh’s increasingly despotic rule.

The Shah had already clashed with Mossadegh’s in 1952 and forced the ''doctor'' to resign as prime minister. At that time, however the ''politics of street'' had turned against the Shah and he had been obliged to reinstate Mossadegh. In August 1953 the tide had turned against Mussadeq who had further undermined his own position by disbanding the parliament elected under his own stewardship.

...

Loy Henderson , the US ambassador to Tehran at the time, makes it abundantly clear in his dispatches to the State Department that Mussadeq was overthrown by a popular uprising which started from the poorest districts of the Iranian capital. Henderson’s reports have been published in a book of more than 100 pages, translated into Persian and published in Iran.
The Iranian public, therefore, has a more balanced view of the events than its American counterpart which is fed recycled claims by former CIA operatives. British and Soviet accounts at the time also make it clear that Mussadeq had fallen victim to his own hubris which antagonized his allies and forced the Iranian people into revolt.

More than 100 books, by Iranian and American scholars, give the lie to the CIA operatives ''self-congratulatory'' account.
Barry Rubin writes “It cannot be said that the United States overthrew Mussadeq and replaced him with the Shah… Overthrowing Mussadeq was like pushing an open door.”
Gary Sick writes ''The belief that the United States had single-handedly imposed a harsh tyrant on a reluctant populace became one of the central myths of the relationship, particularly as viewed from Iran.''
Amir Taheri writes “What happened was not a successful conclusion of a (CIA) conspiracy but a genuine uprising provoked by economic hardship, political fear and religious prejudice.”
Richard Helms, long time CIA director, told a BBC television program that '' the agency did not counter rumours of in Iran because the Iranian episode looked like a success. At the time, of course, agency needed some success, especially to counter fiascos as the Bay of Pigs.''
Even Donald Wilber, the CIA operative whose ''secret report'' has been given top billing by the New York Times makes it clear that whatever he and his CIA colleagues were up to in Tehran at the time simply failed.
Wilbert writes:'' headquarters spent a day featured by depression and despair… The message sent to Tehran on the night of August 18 said that the operation has been tried and failed and that contrary operations against Mussadeq should be discontinued.''

Mossadegh was overthrown on 19 August when hundreds of thousands to Tehranis poured into the streets to demand his departure and the return of the Shah.
This was not a military ''coup d’etat'' since there was no change in the constitution or any of the structures of the Iranian state. Nor was the Shah’s position as head of state affected. Under the constitution of 1906 the Shah had the power to name and dismiss prime ministers. He simply exercised that power by dismissing Mossadegh and nominating Zahedi in a perfectly legal and constitutional manner… Mussadeq tried to resist his dismissal but was swept away by the masses.

...

Mossadegh himself never blamed the Americans for his downfall. He was intelligent enough to know why his political career led into an impasse.
The anti-Mossadegh coalition did, of course, look to the United States, as the leader of the Free World, to counter any ore than the soviets might have, made at the time to intervene in what was a domestic Iranian power struggle.

...



Empress Farah Pahlavi's response to the New York Times

Howell Raines Esq.
Editorial Page Editor,
The New York Times
229 West 43rd ST.
New York, NY 10036-3959
April 20, 2000

Dear Mr. Raines,

The article " a Secret C.I.A History" printed in the New York Times on April 16, 2000 renders a self-lauding, exaggerated, and partial account of the events of 1953. It also makes several erroneous and unfair remarks about my late husband, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. Contrary to what the so-called secret history suggests, my husband's hesitation about dismissing Premier Mossadegh did not result from his indecisiveness. The Shah had strongly supported Dr.Mossadegh in the fight for the nationalization of Iran's oil industry, agreeing with him that Iran had been systematically exploited by the British and other foreign powers. For him, the Premier's struggle to emancipate Iran's resources took precedence over all other issue save protecting the nation's independence and territorial integrity. Dr.Mossadegh misperceived the international array of economic and military powers deployed against him and Iran. He overestimated the strategic importance of Iran's oil to the Western world. The country was taken step by step to a political and diplomatic impasse. Iran's economic and social conditions deteriorated. The Communist Party grew inordinately in size and power, penetrating several critical government institutions including the armed forces. In the meantime, his former allies - the middle class, clerics, merchants, and some members of the national front renounced him.

My husband supported Dr.Mossadegh as long as possible. For several months, he resisted many members of the political elite, including several of the Premier's former allies, who insisted that Dr. Mossadegh be discharged. The Shah’s reluctance sprung partly from his wish to be certain that deposing the premier accorded with Iran's constitution. It was only when the Prime Minister arbitrarily dissolved the constitutionally elected Parliament, and the Shah was convinced that the country's national independence and territorial integrity were manifestly threatened, did he decide to dismiss Dr.Mossadegh.

To claim that the Monarchy was saved in 1953 because of the C.I.A involvement and that the late DR. Mossadegh was removed from power with a sum of money is an insult to every Iranian.

The report says that the message sent to Tehran on the night of August 18th was that " the operation has been tried and failed." The Monarchy was saved because it was the will of all Iranians.
While some selected documents produced by a specific agency may indeed be conducive to the current disposition of a specific administration, it would be wrong to assume any objective observer, be it an Iranian or foreigner, base his opinion solely on such a limited account.

It is unfortunate that in an attempt to appease the current ruling clerics in Iran, the government of the United States and increasingly the media have chosen to disparage the late Shah of Iran without consideration of his pivotal role in regional and world peace and his service to his country. It is equally unfortunate that they choose to confuse the attitude of the present regime in Iran towards the United States with that of the people of Iran.

The thirty-seven years of the Shah’s reign concurrent with the administration of eight US Presidents shows a close and mutually
beneficial alliance for most of the time.

Contrary to recent statements by US officials, Iranian people never held animus toward Americans before or after the events of 1953. Witness the friendship Iranians extended to many Americans in Iran prior to the revolution and the hospitality shown to the few Americans now traveling to Iran. In the interest of the two peoples, it is essential that no one allow this misconception to cloud sound judgment.

Iran will rise from her ashes.


Sincerely yours,
Farah Pahlavi


[This NPR audio has some errors that are addressed above]




And the Shah's own account

"It was only on reaching the edge of the abyss that the Iranian people awoke to the immensity of the danger which threatened them, but first there were three days of rioting in Teheran. The first two days were organized by the partisans of Mosaddeq and the Toudeh [Communist Party]. It was not until the morning of the third day, August 19, 1953, that with extraordinary courage, workers and artisans, students and professional men, soldiers and policemen, even women and children confronted the guns, machine guns and even tanks of the raving dictator and reversed the situation. A single warning shot fired from a loyal tank at the house of the ex-Prime Minister put an end to three years of demented politics. Dressed in pyjamas, the President climbed the wall into neighboring garden and took refuge in a cellar belonging to the director of postal services. He had had twenty-seven gallows erected in Sepah Square where he meant publicly to hang his enemies some of whom were former members of his own party.

"I returned to Teheran where I was greeted with popular enthusiasm. Throughout Iran the voice of the people called irresistibly. Before, I had been no more than a hereditary sovereign, but now I had the right to claim that I had really been elected by the people.

"In front of his judges, Mosaddeq continued to play his part, he was at times pitiable, he fabricated stories and behaved extravagantly. He continued to make a spectacle of himself in front of the international press. Since his mother was a descendant of the Qajars he may have hated our dynasty. I do not know. But I knew that he would certainly be condemned to death. He was convicted of treason.

"I told the court not to take into account his actions against me. Freed after three years in prison, he went into retirement on his large estate at Ahmad-Abad to the west of Teheran and died there in 1967.”

"It took nearly thirty months for the Iranian people to see Mosaddeq as the prototype sorcerer’s apprentice, incapable of controlling or dominating the forces of destruction which he himself had unleashed. Although by the end of August the rabble no longer ruled and honest citizens could once more live and work in peace, the country was nonetheless ruined and indebted. The damages suffered by our economy amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars and we had wasted three years.”

On Tudeh Party
“The communist plan consisted firstly in using Mosaddeq to topple me. According to some papers discovered, belonging to the Toudeh, Mosaddeq was to be eliminated two weeks after my departure. I have seen postage stamps printed in the name of the People’s Iranian Republic which was then to be proclaimed. The uprising of the masses in my favour took the conspirators by surprise”.

“There being no doubt about the political and financial support given by the Russians to the Toudeh, Great Britain and, more especially, the United States were said to have financed the overthrow of the Mosaddeq. But the most accurate documentation proves that at the time of these events the CIA had spent no more than 60,000 dollars. I really do not think that such a sum is enough to make a whole country rise up in a few days.”





2.) In his book "Dreams from my Father", in chapter six, he relates that during his time at Occidental College, 1979 to 1981, in the chaotic and bloody aftermath of the Shah's overthrow and the rise of the mullah tyranny, and the Iran Hostage Crisis (Nov 1979 to Jan 1981), Obama still considered the Shah as the bad guy and immediately choose to verbally trash him when the topic came up

When a balding Iranian with a glass eye was harassing Obama's friend (and future violent criminal) Earl Chew ("Marcus") in the school library, asking insulting questions about why slaves had allowed themselves to be subjugated and did not fight back, Obama came to Chew's aid, pointing out that not only did the slaves fight back heroically, but

Was the collaboration of some slaves any different than the silence of Iranians who stood by and did nothing as Savak thugs murdered and tortured opponents of the Shah? How could we judge other men until we had stood in their shoes?


This would have been a perfect answer, IF he had not tried to compare the Shah's Iran to Slavery. In 1979-1981, wouldn't the mullah regime that had imposed an absolute tyranny, sanctions rape of women, uses children as weapons and was committing was committing outrageous acts of hostage taking and terrorism be a much more logical comparison to slavery? Why immediately go after the liberal regime of the Shah?

To break down his language, let's first identify Savak. Savak was the Iranian state police and intelligence apparatus during the time of the Shah. In his book, the Shah explains that

“Savak was instituted in Iran to combat communist subversion after the disastrous Mossadeq episode…. It is not for me to judge the attitude adopted by Western countries towards their communists. Savak was created, then, to put an end to subversive activities which constitute, for outside and inside, a serious danger to Iran. The organization was entrusted to General Bakhtiar, in 1953, and he called in the CIA to advise him. Subsequently many Savak officials went to be trained by the CIA at Langley. They also went ot other Western countries to observe the methods used there. “

“I cannot defend Savak’s every action. It is possible that people arrested were roughly handled. However, precise instructions were given in order that no abuse might take place. When, a year later, the Red Cross wished to investigate, the prisons were opened to their representatives. Attention was paid to their recommendations and, from that moment, we heard no more complaints...

"With regard to those who were arrested for political reasons-I cannot include arsonists and saboteurs in this category-I affirm that they were properly treated and they were never molested in any way. No one can tell me the name of a single politician who has been 'liquidated’ by Savak.”


Included in the category of those who the Savak were to defend against were the Khalidi era PLO, who helped train the Islamists and cooperated with them and the Communists in their efforts to bring down an American ally.

And as far as the idea that Shah was some tyrant

For many years the Martyrs Foundation collected the names of the victims of the anti-Shah revolution classifying them by age, sex, education, profession and address. The files were kept secret until 1996/7 when a decision was made to make public the figures on the anniversary of the revolution. At about this time, Emad al-Dib Baghi, was hired as a researcher and editor of the bonyad's magazine "Yad Yaran" (Remembering our Comrades) to make sense of the data. By the time his work had finished he was told that the names were not to be made public. The reason given was that to pursue the matter would run contrary to the statements made by the late Ayatollah Khomeini and his successors who claimed that "60,000 men, women and children were martyred by the Shah's regime."

Emad al-Din Baghi who left the Martyrs Foundation to write two books on the subject claims that the authorities felt that releasing the true statistics would simply confuse the public. So, officials continued to stick to the exaggerated numbers. During a debate in the Majlis at the height of the US hostage crisis, an Islamic deputy claimed that giving in to America would be an insult to the memory of "70,000 martyrs and 100,000 wounded who fought to destroy the rotten monarchy." In fact, by continuing the myth that so many people had been killed, the regime was able to buy a certain legitimacy for its "noble revolution" and excesses.

"Sooner or later the truth was bound to come out," Baghi argued. In his opinion history should be based on objective findings and not baseless rumours which was the root of the anti-Shah hysteria and street demonstrations in 1978 and 1979. The true numbers are fascinating because contrary to the official view they are quite low and highly disproportionate to the hundreds of thousands murdered in the last 24 years in the Islamic republic.

The statistical breakdown of victims covering the period from 1963 to 1979 adds up to a figure of 3,164. Of this figure 2,781 were killed in nation wide disturbances in 1978/79 following clashes between demonstrators and the Shah's army and security forces. Baghi has no reason to doubt these figures and believes that it is probably the most comprehensive number available with the possible exception of a few names that were not traced.


With these facts in hand, it is nearly impossible for regime apologists to claim that America is the problem. Our President should not be among them.

Know who our friends are, Mr. President. And Know who are our enemies.

Monday, May 3, 2010

Frank Marshall Davis was a racist, teabagging pedophile

NOTE: I do not share the views of the advertisements on the radio show interview linked to below - ignore them.

People who have been paying attention would have heard of Frank Marshall Davis, Stalinist and secret Communist Party operative who helped raise a teenage Barrack Obama when he lived with his marxist grandparents in Hawaii. Well...

Mr Davis moved to Honolulu from Chicago in 1948 with his second wife Helen Canfield, a white socialite, at the suggestion of his friend the actor (and committed Stalinist) Paul Robeson, who advised them that there would be more tolerance of a mixed race couple in Hawaii than on the American mainland.

A bohemian libertine who drank heavily and loved jazz, he became friends with Stanley Dunham, Mr Obama’s maternal grandfather in the 1960s. Mr Davis died in 1987 at the age of 81, five years before Mr Dunham.

“He knew Stan real well,” said Dawna Weatherly-Williams, a close friend of Mr Davis “They’d play Scrabble and drink and crack jokes and crack jokes and argue. Frank always won and he was always very braggadocio about it too. It was all jocular. They didn’t get polluted drunk. And Frank never really did drugs, though he and Stan would smoke pot together.”

While his mother was in Indonesia during part of his teenage years, Mr Obama lived with his white grandparents. Mrs Weatherly-Williams said that the poet was first introduced to the future Democratic presidential candidate in 1970 at the age of 10.

“Stan had been promising to bring Barry by because we all had that in common - Frank’s kids were half-white, Stan’s grandson was half-black and my son was half-black. We all had that in common and we all really enjoyed it. We got a real kick out of reality.”

Maya Soetoro-Ng, Obama's half-sister, told the Associated Press recently that her grandfather had seen Mr Davis was “a point of connection, a bridge if you will, to the larger African-American experience for my brother".

In his memoir, Mr Obama recounts how he visited Mr Davis on several occasions, apparently at junctures when he was grappling with racial issues, to seek his counsel. At one point in 1979 Mr Davis described university as “an advanced degree in compromise” that was designed to keep blacks in their place.

Mr Obama quoted him as saying: “Leaving your race at the door. Leaving your people behind. Understand something, boy. You’re not going to college to get educated. You’re going there to get trained.”
He added that “they’ll tank on your chain and let you know that you may be a well-trained, well-paid nigger, but you’re a nigger just the same.”

It has also been established that Mr Davis, who divorced in 1970, was the author of a hard-core pornographic autobiography published in San Diego in 1968 by Greenleaf Classics under the pseudonym Bob Greene.
In a surviving portion of an autobiographical manuscript, Mr Davis confirms that he was the author of Sex Rebel: Black after a reader had noticed the “similarities in style and phraseology” between the pornographic work and his poetry.
“I could not then truthfully deny that this book, which came out in 1968 as a Greenleaf Classic, was mine.” In the introduction to Sex Rebel, Mr Davis (writing as Greene) explains that although he has “changed names and identities…all incidents I have described have been taken from actual experiences”.

He stated that “under certain circumstances I am bisexual” and that he was “ a voyeur and an exhibitionist” who was “occasionally mildly interested in sado-masochism”, adding: “I have often wished I had two penises to enjoy simultaneously the double – but different – sensations of oral and genital copulation.”
The book, which closely tracks Mr Davis’s life in Chicago and Hawaii and the fact that his first wife was black and his second white, describes in lurid detail a series of shockingly sordid sexual encounters, often involving group sex.
One chapter concerns the seduction by Mr Davis and his first wife of a 13-year-old girl called Anne. Mr Davis wrote that it was the girl who had suggested he had sex with her. “I’m not one to go in for Lolitas. Usually I’d rather not bed a babe under 20.
“But there are exceptions. I didn’t want to disappoint the trusting child. At her still-impressionistic age, a rejection might be traumatic, could even cripple her sexually for life.”
He then described how he and his wife would have sex with the girl. “Anne came up many times the next several weeks, her aunt thinking she was in good hands. Actually she was.
“She obtained a course in practical sex from experienced and considerate practitioners rather than from ignorant insensitive neophytes….I think we did her a favour, although the pleasure was mutual.”


On other occasions, Mr Davis would cruise in Hawaii parks looking for couples or female tourists to have sex with. He derived sexual gratification from bondage, simulated rape and being flogged and urinated on.
He boasted that “the number of white babes interested in at least one meeting with a Negro male has been far more than I can handle” and wished “America were as civilised as, say, Scandinavia”. He concluded: “I regret none of my experiences or unusual appetites; for me they are normal.”
According to Mrs Weatherly-Williams, Mr Davis lost touch with Mr Dunham some time in the 1980s. John Edgar Tidwell, who wrote the introduction to Davis's memoir and edited a collection of his work, said that there was no mention of Mr Dunham or Mr Obama in any of Mr Davis’s papers.
As usual, the disgusting, homophobic racism of the teabagging fascist left is visible for all to see.

Quick review of his relationship with Obama: