Wednesday, July 14, 2010

La Russie , un merveilleux peuple pour un pays merveilleux

La Russie , un merveilleux peuple pour un pays merveilleux

RUSSIA the GREAT...

L’un dans l’autre, en dépit de ces ambivalences et de ces contradictions, ou grâce à elles, la Russie est devenue l’un des « peuples élus de la géopolitique ». La Russie est le plus grand Etat du monde depuis le début du XVIIIe siècle, date à laquelle elle a dépassé la Chine en superficie. Au début du XXe siècle, l'Empire russe contrôlait quelque 22 millions de kilomètres carrés d'un seul tenant, soit le sixième de toutes les terres émergées ou encore, selon la remarque d'Alexandre de Humboldt, « plus que la superficie de la face visible de la Lune » . Ce fut également, à quelques changements de frontières près, la superficie d'une Union soviétique dont les armoiries arboraient, avec une tranquille assurance, le globe terrestre. La Fédération de Russie actuelle, telle qu'elle a pris forme en 1991 après la sécession des quatorze républiques soviétiques non-russes, ne couvre plus que 17 millions de kilomètres carrés : mais c'est encore près de deux fois la superficie des deuxième, troisième et quatrième Etats du monde, le Canada, la Chine et les Etats-Unis, qui s'étendent respectivement sur près de 9,9 millions de kilomètres, près de 9,6 millions et près de 9,4 millions ; ou bien, pour donner d'autres ordres de comparaison, trente-quatre fois la superficie de la France, quarante-cinq fois celle du Japon, près de quarante-huit fois celle de l'Allemagne, soixante-neuf fois celle du Royaume-Uni.

Populations

La Russie est également l’un des Etats les plus peuplés du monde. Vers l'an 900, on comptait probablement 3,5 millions d'habitants dans l'espace correspondant à la Russie cisouralienne actuelle, à l'Ukraine et à la Biélorussie : dont 75 % de Slaves protorusses, 10 ou 15 % de Finnois et 10 ou 15 % de nomades indo-européens ou turco-mongols. Cela représentait le dixième de la population globale de l'Europe, de l'Atlantique à l'Oural : beaucoup moins, tant en chiffres absolus qu'en densité de population, que les espaces correspondant à la France actuelle (ils devaient compter quelque 6 millions d'habitants vers 900) ou à l'Italie actuelle (4,5 milllions à la même époque) ; infiniment moins que le sous-continent indien des Gurjara-Pratihara (70 millions au Xe siècle) ou la Chine des Tang (55 millions). Vers 1200, cependant, la population de ce monde, devenu « russien », avait crû de plus de 150 % : elle dépassait les 9 millions d'habitants, se situant assez près de ce qui était alors la population la France dans ses limites actuelles (10 à 11 millions) mais au-dessus de la population de l’espace italien (7,5 millions). Aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles, un double effondrement démographique se produit, provoqué par les invasions mongoles puis la peste noire. Mais c'est un effondrement relatif : si la population cesse de croître, elle ne décroît pas non plus. A partir du XVe siècle, le "rassemblement" progressif des terres russiennes dans un Etat centralisé et de plus en plus occidentalisé assure une croissance démographique continue, donc de plus en plus rapide : 15 millions vers 1600, après l'unification de la Russie du Nord et du Centre et le début des conquêtes transouraliennes, 20 millions vers 1700 après la conquête de l'Ukraine, près de 40 millions en 1800 après la conquête de la Biélorussie et de l'Ukraine occidentale. Le XIXe siècle et le début du XXe siècle, sur cette lancée, sont un long âge d'or démographique : 200 % d'augmentation sur six générations, le plus fort taux au sein d'un monde européen lui-même en très forte croissance. La population de l'Empire russe, qui a dépassé le seuil des 100 millions d'habitants en 1870, est de 133 millions en 1914. Si les éléments non-russes et surtout non-slaves s'accroissent en termes absolus, du fait de la conquête de la Pologne, de la Bessarabie, du Caucase et de l'Asie centrale, l'élément russe et semi-russe (Ukrainiens, Biélorusses, russifiés divers) est à la fois prépondérant en termes absolus et de plus en plus fort en termes relatifs. Après la Chine, qui a dépassé les 450 millions d'habitants mais qui semble engagée dans un processus de désintégration politique irrémédiable, la Russie apparaît ainsi à la veille de la Première Guerre mondiale comme le plus peuplé des Etats-nations : devant les Etats-Unis (100 millions d'habitants), l'Allemagne (60 millions) ou le Royaume-Uni (54 millions, dont 42 dans les Iles Britanniques et 12 millions dans les Dominions).

Effondrements

Le XXe siècle est marqué par une ultime poussée démographique en chiffres absolus : la population globale du monde russe passe à 200 millions d’âmes dans les années trente puis à près de 300 millions à la fin des années quatre-vingt, soit approximativement 100 % d’accroissement en une soixantaine d’années. Mais en termes relatifs, cette croissance recouvre d’abord, des années dix aux années soixante, une série d’effondrements temporaires, dûs à des causes externes : la Première Guerre mondiale et la Révolution bolchévique, de 1914 à 1924, se soldent par 16 millions de morts au moins, 2 millions de départs vers l’étranger et un déficit des naissances tournant autour de 10 ou 12 millions ; les famines, les purges et les déportations de l’ère stalinienne entraînent quelque 20 millions de morts, dont une dizaine de millions d’assassinats délibérément organisés, et un déficit des naissances de 15 millions au moins ; la Seconde Guerre mondiale se solde par 25 millions de morts et un déficit des naissances de plus de 10 millions. Puis, à partir des années soixante, une régression démographique de longue durée, dûe à des causes internes, prend forme. Comme dans les pays occidentaux, la natalité tombe en-dessous du taux de renouvellement des générations : alors qu’une femme russe avait en moyenne 7,5 enfants dans les années vingt, elle n’en a plus, à partir des années quatre-vingt, que 1,3. Mais à la différence de ce qui se passe en Occident, la mortalité remonte fortement au même moment : l’espérance de vie n’est plus à la fin du XXe siècle que de 59 ans pour le sexe masculin et de 73 ans pour le sexe féminin, ce qui place la Russie loin derrière le Japon, l’Amérique du Nord ou l’Europe, et même sensiblement derrière la plupart des pays asiatiques. La combinaison de ces deux facteurs, sans équivalent dans le monde contemporain, pourrait entraîner une chute démograhique de 20 % en l’espace de trente ans, entre 2000 et 2030, puis, si la tendance se prolongeait, un véritable collapsus, avec une seconde chute de 20 ou 30 % par rapport aux chiffres de 2030.

Citoyens

Mais rien ne permet d’affirmer, pour l’instant, qu’il en sera ainsi. Et le fait démographique russe reste, en soi, énorme. La Fédération de Russie compte près de 150 millions d'habitants en l'an 2010. Cela fait d'elle un des dix Etats les plus peuplés de la terre, au septième rang exactement, derrière la Chine, l'Inde, les Etats-Unis, l'Indonésie, le Brésil et le Japon, devant le Pakistan, le Bangladesh et le Bangladesh. Sur ces quelque 150 millions de citoyens russes, 130 sont considérés comme des Russes ethniques, de nationalité russe, pour reprendre une distinction de l'ancien droit public soviétique : les autres appartiennent à diverses minorités nationales, des Tatars du Tatarstan aux Yakoutes du Sakha, en passant par les Allemands de la Volga ou les Juifs. En dehors de la Fédération russe actuelle, on compte environ 30 millions de Russes ethniques ou de Slaves russifiés devenus citoyens des Etats ex-soviétiques : 2 millions dans les pays baltes, 20 millions en Ukraine, en Biélorussie et en Moldavie, 6 à 7 millions dans le Caucase et en Asie centrale. Mais la russophonie, qu'il s'agisse de locuteurs pour lesquelles le russe est la langue de la vie quotidienne ou du travail, ou de communicateurs capables de communiquer en russe mais pratiquant une autre langue quotidienne, recouvre presque tout l'ancien empire russe, de même que l'anglophonie, l'hispanophonie, la lusophonie et la francophonie restent prépondérantes, à un degré ou à un autre, dans les anciens empires britannique, espagnol, portugais et français. En Ukraine, l'ukrainien, première langue nationale, ne serait véritablement parlé que par un tiers de la population : les autres, y compris une bonne moitié des Ukrainiens ethniques, utilisent le russe. Au Kazakhstan, les proportions seraient encore plus favorables au russe : les Kazakhs de souche ne forment que 40 % environ de la population, et plus la moitié d'entre eux ne parlent pas leur langue, ce qui fait du russe, volens nolens, la langue réelle du pays, tout comme l'anglais, et non le gaélique, est la langue réelle de l'Irlande indépendante.

De surcroît, la russophonie va d'ailleurs au-delà des limites de l'ex-URSS. Les exilés « russes blancs » d'après 1917 - en Europe, en Amérique du Nord, mais aussi en Chine - ont souvent transmis les rudiments de la langue russe à leurs enfants et petits-enfants. Près d'un million de russophones d'origine juive vivent aujourd'hui en Israël et semblent soucieux, eux aussi, de perpétuer leur singularité culturelle et linguistique. Le russe fut, tout au long de la guerre froide, seconde langue obligatoire en Europe de l'Est et dans les autres pays soumis à l'URSS, y compris Cuba et le Vietnam : tombé en désaffection après la chute de l'Empire, en 1989-1991, il n'est pas oublié pour autant ; il suffirait que la nouvelle Russie connaisse un développement économique réel et rapide pour que son usage réapparraisse. Ainsi redéfini, le monde russophone englobe sans doute 400 millions d'hommes et de femmes au seuil du XXIe siècle. Il se situe au troisième rang mondial, derrière les mondes sinophone et anglophone, devant les mondes arabophone et hispanophone.

Trivokzalni

Dans le Moscou de la fin de l’époque Gorbatchev, il fallait avoir vu Trivokzalni, le quartier des Trois Gares. Les édifices en question - la gare de Pétersbourg, rebaptisée « de Leningrad », Leningradski, la gare de Yaroslav et celle de Kazan - étaient situés si près l'un de l'autre qu'ils n'en formaient, à bien des égards, qu'un seul. Mais chacun avait été traité dans le style de la ville ou des régions desservies : pour la première, reconstruite sous Khroutchev, un modernisme froid, vaguement néo-classique ; pour la seconde, qui reliait Moscou à la Russie du Nord, un mélange d’Art Nouveau et de réminiscences scandinaves ; pour la troisième enfin, qui conduisait aux pays semi-tatares de la Volga, un baroquisme islamisant. Rehaussé, à l'arrière-plan, par les flèches effilées des gratte-ciels staliniens, l’effet était saisissant. Mais ce que qui faisait, en ce temps-là, la réputation des lieux, c’était moins les bâtiments que ce qu’ils facilitaient. Trivokzalni (le mot, en russe, évoque la Trinité chrétienne, mais aussi, plus sourdement, les triades du chamanisme et de la sorcellerie) était en effet l’une des zones interlopes qui permettaient au Moscou totalitaire de respirer, et peut-être la principale. D'une gare à l'autre, disait-on, le flux de voyageurs était tel que la milice et la police secrète ne pouvaient que relâcher leurs contrôles, oublier de vérifier les passeports intérieurs, tolérer d'étranges manèges et de trop évidentes transactions. A moins que cette impuissance ne fût, en fait, qu'un pieux mensonge, entretenu par les forces de sécurité elles-mêmes : elles n'avaient pas moins besoin de ces transactions et de ces manèges que le reste de la société, pour les hautes et basses raisons qui leur étaient propres... Aux trains de jour, frottés d’une odeur de saucisson à l’ail, succédaient les trains de nuit, où des inconnus, avant de s'emmurer dans le sommeil des justes ou des criminels, engoncés dans leurs pardessus gris, passaient à la ronde une bouteille de vodka. Dans les salles d'attente, un peuple de migrants, toutes races brassées, était assis, affalé, parfois accroupi. L'heure venue, il se hâtait de quai en quai, charriant ses valises, ses ballots, ses cageots. Les Moscovites venaient se mêler aux voyageurs, échanger des produits qu'on ne trouvait que dans la capitale contre ceux qu'on ne produisait qu'en province. De minces jeunes filles, débarquées de Russie profonde ou du Caucase, cherchaient du regard le futur protecteur qui allait leur apprendre à gravir, jambes nues, les cercles concentriques de la Nomenklatura. Les émissaires de chefs locaux du parti, souvent en uniforme, le visage encadré par une casquette démesurée ou une chapka, s'apprêtaient à régler, en marge de leur ordre de route officiel, les arrangements d'homme à homme, de clan à clan, sur lesquels reposaient le pays et l'Etat. Les popes de l'Eglise officielle, en robe et en mitre, la barbe bien taillée, croisaient les prédicateurs semi-clandestins, nu-tête et barbe folle : la foule s'écartait avec un même respect devant les deux races d'hommes de Dieu. Il y avait enfin ceux qui avaient préparé un voyage depuis quinze ans, pour retrouver, par-delà purges, goulags et relégations, la trace d'un frère, d'une soeur, d'un fils ou d'une fille, et ceux qui, tout simplement, se hâtaient vers l'âme-soeur, non seulement l'amante ou l'amant, mais aussi et surtout l'ami ou l'amie qui avait lu les mêmes livres d'autrefois ou d'ailleurs, ou les mêmes samizdats, et avec lequel, une fois encore, on barvarderait jusqu'au matin autour de verres de thé bouillant. Quel défi pour l'idéologie régnante, pour le Plan, pour le mythe d'un peuple sans classes tout entier mobilisé sous la conduite éclairée du parti de Lénine, que ces allers et venues browniens d'individus réeels, à la poursuite de pauvres et infinis bonheurs réels. Et quelle leçon, dans un Etat fondé sur un économisme naïf, que cette plongée in vivo dans les économies concrètes, dans le marché ubiquitaire, implacable, insatiable, des ressources vivrières et des objets, du sexe et du pouvoir, de l'âme et de l'esprit.

Voyages

Mais Trivokzalni, ce n'était pas seulement la Russie réelle sous l'URSS. C'était aussi la Russie de tous les temps. En se promenant ici, on se rappelait soudain que le voyage - la marche, la hache à la main, dans la forêt, la chevauchée et le pâturage dans la prairie, l'itinéraire mystique, et souvent, en même temps, paillard, vers le lieu saint païen et le sanctuaire chrétien, le cheminement du colporteur, la caravane du marchand, le chalan pathétique des déportés et des relégués, la ruée des soldats du tsar et de l'Armée rouge - avait été l'état originel, natif, d'une nation ivre de trop d'espace. Les premiers livres russes dignes d'intérêt avaient été des récits de pélerins ou d'aventuriers : Les Dits du pélerin russe, Le Voyage au-delà des Trois Mers. Léon Tolstoï, dont les romans et les nouvelles sont emplis d'images et de thèmes pérégrins - cavalcades de soldats-centaures (Les Cosaques, Les Guerres du Caucase), errances aristocratiques en chemin de fer (Anna Karénine), convois de déportés (Résurrection) -, avait finu par fuguer à quatre-vingt-deux ans, et était mort sur un quai de gare, à Yasnaïa-Poliana. Trotski, commissaire du peuple à la Guerre, avait sillonné la Russie révolutionnaire, en 1919 et en 1920, dans un train blindé. Le poète Ossip Mandelstam et sa femme Nadejda, exilés en province sur l'ordre de Staline au début des années trente, avaient multiplié de courts séjours semi-clandestins à Moscou "pour y glaner des commérages, des nouvelles, de l'argent". Et à chaque fois, écrira Nadejda dans ses mémoires, ils étaient "sur le point d'oublier ce qu'ils étaient, et devaient se précipiter, in extremis, sur le dernier train pour Kalinine, terrifiés à l'idée d'être bloqués une nuit de trop dans une ville qui leur est interdite". Les autres passagers, ayant deviné en eux des Nyechtchastnyé, des « infortunés » ayant maille à partir avec l’autorité, leur cèdaient un siège et leur tenaient, à leur grand étonnement, des propos "empreints de compassion". C'était par ces périples, ces traversées, ces fuites, que les proto-Russes puis les Russes avaient peu à peu façonné la Russie, pour le bien et pour le mal. Et l'on sentait confusément, en se promenant de la gare de Leningrad à celle de Yaroslav, et de celle-ci à la gare de Kazan, que les voyages et les voyageurs allaient rendre un jour la Russie à elle-même, par-delà le communisme ou par-delà les nouvelles catastrophes que la chute du communisme ne manquerait pas d’entraîner.

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

The Secrets Behind the “Roses Revolution”


12 07 2010

The Secrets of the Georgian Coup, an ex-Soviet Republic

by Paul Labarique

Presented as a spontaneous and non violent movement, the riot that forced Eduard Shevardnadze’s resignation from the presidency of Georgia is, in real life, the result of a patient manipulation. Georgia, a disputed strategic oil target between the Russian Federation and the U.S., has become the center of their conflict. The popular anger, skillfully manipulated by Madeleine Albright’s Democratic Institute and formed by youth associations funded by George Soros, allowed the CIA to put its men in control of Tbilisi, the capital of the country.

Ruled since 1991 by the USSR former Minister of Foreign Relations, Eduard Shevardnadze, Georgia has overcome a pacifist revolution. The so called “White Zorro” was expelled by his people -tired of a total corruption and an endless economic fragility- who questioned the regularity of last November 2003 elections. This spontaneous movement (compared with the “carnation revolution” by which the Portuguese people overthrew without violence Marcelo Caetano’s regime, heir of Salazar’s dictatorship) has been named the “roses revolution” for such a movement will lead to the reestablishment of a more transparent and less corrupted democratic regime that would give hope to the people.

But then we would believe the extraordinary propaganda campaign that led to this coup planned abroad for a long time. And the thing is that Georgia is far from being a country without any international perspective. Its importance is even crucial in the international arena. In fact, its territory occupies the south of the Caspian Sea and has borders with Turkey, Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. This central position usually places it in the middle of a turbulent area since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, especially in the middle of the pipelines war between the U.S. and the Russian Federation.

Georgia in the Middle of the “Great Game”

Hostilities began on April 17, 1999 with the inauguration of the pipeline that goes from Baku (Azerbaijan) to the port of Supsa (Georgia) in the Black Sea. The project, financed by Washington, put an end to the Russian hegemony on the hydrocarbon exports of the Caspian Sea. During that year too, Georgia allied with Ukraine and Azerbaijan and separated from Russia. It also broke the borders collective defense treaty of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and the Tashkent collective security treaty (signed in this city, capital of Uzbekistan, another former Soviet republic).

Instead of this diplomatic system of alliances organized around Russia, Georgia preferred to join NATO and its American leading. This attitude forced president Yeltsin to sign, in November 1999 during the Summit of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in Istanbul, an agreement to dismantle two of the four Russian military bases in Georgia, a dismantling that began in year 2000 despite the General Staff’s reluctance. The Georgian decision of siding with the U.S. in a moment, in which its strategic position was fundamental, was a tendency which characterized the countries of the southern Caucasus. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. changed its “containment” strategy in the region and applied the “rollback” strategy which consisted in causing the rise and falls of the Russian positions. Thus, the most important countries of the region formed Guuam, an acronym composed by the first letter of Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldavia. This organization, in favor of the U.S., met in May 2000 -in Washington- to address military and security issues.

The Guuam countries are the core of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline American project that would link up Azerbaijan with Turkey through the Georgian capital. Its route does not include the Russian territory, goes through Chechnya and surrounds both Iran and Armenia. Armenia and Azerbaijan have a conflict regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh region and Armenia is still the only member state of the area working for Moscow’s military cooperation bodies. Therefore, western countries are putting a lot of pressure on Armenians for they want them to make the necessary concessions on the conflict with Azerbaijan and join the great BTC pipeline project.

In October 1999, Armenia’s Primer Minister and President of Parliament were murdered. These pressures were aimed at stabilizing the countries the pipeline would go through. However, oil is not the only thing at risk, but political and military objectives too. The CIA presented an extremely optimistic report -completely false, according to experts- on the reserves of the Caspian Sea to exaggerate its importance. According to experts on the Caucasus Jean Radvanyi and Philippe Rekacewicz, «the pressure exerted by Washington and Ankara on the companies so that they co-finance the pipeline construction in Georgia and Turkey show the priority given to political purposes over economics». [1].

Eduard Shevardnadze, an Ungrateful Ally

In this new “Great Game”, characterized as a sort of a new Cold War, [2]. Georgia was a key country for it could guarantee the stability of oil installations and Turkey’s supplies. Consequently, Shevardnadze’s regimen was especially “spoiled” by Washington which turned it into the main regional recipient of its economic assistance. In return, Georgia followed the White House’s foreign policy without hesitation.

In 1999, when Russian president Boris Yeltsin decided to use the Georgian territory to invade Chechnya, Shevardnadze did what Clinton’s special adviser to Russia -Strobe Talbott- told him to do: reject the Russian request. A month after September 11, 2001, Shevardnadze proposed the admission of American troops in the region in exchange of a huge financial assistance. Georgia was later used as a stopover for the US Air Force flights during the war against Afghanistan and authorized several hundreds of American military men to supposedly direct Georgian commandos in the search for hypothetical members of al-Qaeda in neighboring Chechnya. By the end of 2001, Shevardnadze even purged his own intelligence agencies and appointed his pro-American former ambassador to Washington, Tedo Dzhaparidze, as head of the national security.

But as years passed by, the Georgian president lost his influence, the corruption and the poor economic results weakened his position and led him to review his exclusively alignment with Washington’s policy. Gradually, he allied with Alan Abchidze, the Russian follower governor of Adjaria autonomous region, which shared borders with Turkey and was strategically important because the oil coming from neighboring Azerbaijan was essentially transferred through its port which was also Turkey’s main trade door. This rapprochement forced Shevardnadze to improve his relations with Moscow and review his strategic partnership with the U.S. According to agency AFP, in 2003, «American firms were taken out of the Georgian market due to an arbitrary tax». [3]. In this context, Washington gradually withdrew its unconditional support to this ungrateful ally, especially when it fell behind with the construction of the pipeline.

Several officers of the American administration then traveled to Georgia during year 2003 to meet with Shevardnadze. According to English journal The Guardian, the purpose of these official visits was to let Georgian president know that his days as president were counted. Richard Miles, the American ambassador to Georgia, told the Washington Post that the U.S. wanted a “stronger government”, an unusual critic that came from a long time ally. The very same Richard Mile devoted a lot of time to prepare young Mijail Saakashvili for his future job [4].

The U.S. Planning of the Spontaneous Revolution

Saakashvili, 35 years old, got his Law degree at Columbia University, New York and after working for a while in an enterprise there, he went back to Georgia as a protégée and leader of Eduard Shevardnadze’s former party Union of Citizens. In year 2000, he was appointed Minister of Justice. After using his position to denounce the corruption of politicians even in the meetings of the Council of Ministers, he was forced to resign in 2002. He founded then his own party and became one of the leaders of the opposition. Actually, Saakashvili became Washington’s man to overthrow Shevardnadze. The operation, based on Slobodan Milosevic’s overthrow in Serbia, needed the manipulation of several forces.

JPEG - 4 kb
Madeleine Albright
Clinton’s former Secretary of State directed the NGO that said elections were manipulated.

The first thing to be done was to denounce the result of the legislative elections of November 2, 2003 that allowed President Shevardnadze and Aslan Abchidze’s political forces achieve a victory by a narrow margin over the opposition led by Mijail Saakashvili and Nina Burjanadze, then president of the parliament. The “spontaneous” protest was based on two elements: first, it was said the electoral registers were falsified; and second, the result of the last minute polls was different from the official ones. But the problem was that these accusations were made by the same institution: the National Democratic Institute, which, supposedly was an American NGO but in real life was a creation of the National Endowment for Democracy, [5] directed by Bill Clinton’s former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. This foundation also made the electoral registers electronically and its numerous mistakes led to the popular distrust and fraud suspicion. It was also in charge of conducting the last minute polls in which the results of the opposition parties were overestimated.

JPEG - 7.4 kb
George Soros
The multimillionaire funded the youth movement called Kmara which was a copy of the Serbian movement Otpor that challenged and withdrew Milosevic.

But fraud was not the most important thing. The key issue was to find out if the opposition could use this argument and mobilized the public opinion to finally withdraw the regime and force Georgian president’s resignation, something that happened on November 23, 2003. It must be acknowledged that, as Eduard Shevardnadze said to the Russian press some time later; there were no spontaneous movements too. But according to him, the organizers of the whole thing were, first of all, millionaire George Soros [6], the said American Democratic Institute and former Secretary of State James Baker;«George Soros founded youth groups Kmara [Enough!] to challenge the power. They recruited very young boys, 15 years old and trained them in two months [...] The American National Institute did the same thing». [7].

These methods were similar to those used by the U.S. in Serbia in year 2000 to withdraw Slobodan Milosevic. According to the former Georgian minister of security, Igor Giorgadze,«Mijail Saakashvili followed exactly the instructions given to him». It is also true that the youth movement called Kmara denounced by Shevardnadze was financed by George Soros and was a copy of Otpor, the Serbian movement that challenged Milosevic in Belgrade. [8].

The first telephone call made by the interim president was: “the oil pipeline is ok”. Nina Burdjanadze, the interim president of the parliament according to the constitution, announced on November 23, 2003 that she wanted to continue with “the fair political direction” that former president Eduard Shevardnadze had chosen, by making emphasis on the “western values”, the “strategic partnership” with the U.S. and improving relations with Russia. In an interview granted to CNN, she reaffirmed that Georgia’s goal was to «be a member of the European family, of the Euro-Atlantic alliance. We want to keep our strategic partnership with the U.S. who has made a lot for our country». But, according to The Guardian, «the first telephone call made by the acting interim president [...] was to BP [the Anglo-Dutch oil company]. She called them to ‘guarantee that the pipeline is OK’, pointed out an important Georgian official». This first act showed the real purposes of the coup d’état that ended on Sunday, January 4, 2004 with the election of Mijail Saakashvili (Washington’s favorite) as president of the republic.

Then, Russia was forced to react. During the crisis, Vladimir Putin sent his Minister of Foreign Relations, Igor Ivanov, to strengthen the Kremlin’s image in a moment in which its position was considerably weakened. The return to regional tensions was perceived due to the remarkable presence of the Russian forces in the country since the Soviet era that controlled three secessionist or autonomous enclaves (South Osetia, Abkhazia and Adjaria) and two military bases.

The episode was an evidence of the new American interfering methods, inspired by those of the stay behind though greatly modernized, as shown by the Serbian example. But in order to make them operative, these methods must have a real popular support. The last failure of the attempted coup in Venezuela was a cruel warning for the CIA and questioned the doctrine of those that, in Washington, think they can impose their will upon the peoples of the world.




[
1] Jean Radvanyi y Philippe Rekacewicz: «Conflits caucasiens et bras de fer russo-américain», Le Monde diplomatique, October 2000

[2] The Cold War was characterized by the confrontation of two blocks: the U.S. and the USSR without being a direct military clash. This is similar to what we have nowadays in the Caspian Sea region where Washington and Moscow are using intermediary forces to undermine each other’s position. An example of this are the attacks against the northern pipeline which links up Baku with the Russian port of Novorossiysk, registered as part of the Chechnyan territory since it was opened on April 1999 though immediately closed.

On August 1999, Chamil Basaev and Habib Abdarrahman’s Chechnyan fighters took control of Dagestan where, by proposing the establishment of an Islamic state, they weakened Russian’s southern flank. On their side, the Russian tried to used the conflicts in Abkhazia, Osetia and Karabakh to maintain its own influence in the region and, especially, to keep Azerbaijan and Georgia out of the American influence

[3] «Crise géorgienne: l’ami américain n’est plus ce qu’il était», AFP, November 22, 2003

[4] Ian Traynor: “The people smoke out the grey fox”, The Guardian, November 24, 2003

[5] This organization, founded by Ronald Reagan to counteract the “axis of evil” forces is the CIA’s official political funding structure in the world. Its existence allows CIA to fund several political manipulation operations by financing false “left-wing” parties through the American National Democratic Institute or financing “right-wing” organizations thanks to the International Republican Institute

[6] George Soros is an American millionaire of Hungarian origin that owes his fortune to an intense speculative activity. As a member of the International Crisis Group, George Soros funded, with his personal fortune, a number of non governmental organizations and associations. At the beginning of November, the offices of the Soros Foundation in Moscow were confiscated and its activities in Russia were halted

[7] «L’ex-président Chevardnadzé dénonce le rôle des Américains dans sa chute», AFP, December, 1st., 2003

[8] «’It looks disturbingly like a coup’», The Guardian, November 25, 2003

12 07 2010

Eduard Shevardnadze, the ex-President of Georgia, stated that George CIA Soros, a renowned financier, and Richard Miles, the then U.S. ambassador to Georgia, were privy to the Rose Revolution, which lead Mikheil Saakashvili to the presidential post – the VZGLYAD.

According to Shevardnadze, Soros/CIA financed the revolution, and Richard Miles participated in it actively. He also noted that U.S. ex-ambassador “brought much evil to Georgia, but it’s too late to talk about it.”

Miles is considered privy to toppling leaders not only in Georgia, but also in Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia – in these countries he headed U.S. diplomatic missions.

George Soros Relationship Map

12 07 2010

Thursday, July 8, 2010

Travel - Root for Beirut


July 7, 2010 | Travel

The 'Rut Is on Fire
DailyCandy Goes to Beirut, Lebanon

beirut lebanon travel guide!

Beirut is a study in transformation: Postwar chaos and grit give way to high art, refined cuisine, and booming nightlife. Bullet-flecked houses flank avant-garde architectural marvels; women in head scarves walk alongside fur-clad fashion types; a mix of Arabic, English, and French can be heard at any moment. Whether you hit the heavenly beaches in summer or ski resorts in winter, the Mediterranean city has something for everyone.

le gray beirut hotel travel guide!Rest
For sleek, contemporary lodgings, book a room at the newly opened Le Gray, located in the downtown district. Split your time between the state-of-the-art spa, rooftop pool, and circular-shaped Bar ThreeSixty with views of the sea. Up the quaint factor (without sacrificing the cool) at Albergo, a boutique hotel nested in a historic house in Old Beirut. Each of the 33 suites showcases Ottoman or 18th-century French decor. Study the design details while nibbling on thyme croissants and local cheese.

bokja furniture beirut lebanon travel guide!Invest
At poetic boutique Starch (Saifi Village, Downtown; 01-566-079), owner/couturier Rabih Kayrouz selects four to six up-and-coming designers per season. Everything from evening gowns to flower-print blazers hangs on whitewashed branches. If your savings account is flush, make like the jet-set crowd and purchase a holiday flat. Smartly outfit it with colorful textiles and furniture from Bokja (Christian Louboutin is a customer).

Suggest
Get your contemporary art fix at the newest cutting-edge galleries. Beirut Art Center hosts local and international artists in a variety of media (video, design, sculpture, paint); industrial-chic Sfeir-Semler is also a must. Stop in for a midafternoon espresso and brownie break at Papercup, a sweet store selling edgy international magazines (032C, Monocle) and outrageous art books.

tawlet restaurant beirut lebanon travel  guide!Ingest
The local food movement, where chefs are leaving behind refined European cuisine for more authentic, regionally focused Lebanese and Armenian dishes, is catching like wildfire. Case in point: the city’s first farmers market Souk el Tayeb (open Saturdays), a colorful and diverse display of organic, artisanal breads, jam, produce, and more. Grab an outstanding, casual lunch at Tawlet (which means kitchen table in Arabic), a truly special spot where a different regional home chef prepares a daily menu. For high-quality mezze and other Lebanese delicacies, head to Abdel Wahab (56 Abdel Wahab el Inglizi Street; 01-200-550). Sample several varieties of hummus, garlic-spiked yogurt, and zesty tabbouleh in the Ottoman house.

em chill nightclub beirut lebanon travel  guide!The Rest
Nightlife begins at 11 p.m. and ends when the sun rises — or never. After grabbing a drink at Ingresso (Mar Mikhael; 01-565-313), head downstairs to Em Chill, a clubby venue in an old garage where you can listen to bands and DJs. At Behind the Green Door (Nahr Street, extension of Gouraud Street, Mar Mikhael; 01-565-656), a sultry, boudoir-style lounge, sexy arty types swig champagne on velvet couches. There’s no better place to cap things off than at B 018, the beating heart of the chaotic nightlife. Located in a former civil war zone, the warehouse-cum-futuristic underground bunker has a retractable roof, which reveals starry skies and a cool breeze when pulled back.

Photos: Azlan Hashim / Flickr; Courtesy of Le Gray; Courtesy of Bokja; Shirine Saad; Courtesy of Em Chill

Monday, July 5, 2010

Divided We've been conquered....


The king's men
Have betrayed us
Tricked us out of
Our towns/villages

No one else
Gonna save us
We must stand up
On our own

Divided
We've been conquered
For too long
We've played their game

United
We'd be invincible
So rise up
And shake off our chains

We've been fooled
By the banker
The sheriff
And the priest

We've been ruled
By the con men
The scoundrels
And the thieves

Divided
We've been conquered
For too long
We've played their game

United
We'd be invincible
So rise up
And shake off our chains

Feel
The power
Streaming out
Through our souls

Now's
The hour
Come together
And let's roll

Here we are
In the meadow
It is time to
Decide

From afar
The army's nearing
Are we slaves or
Will we fight?

Divided
We've been conquered
For too long
We've played their game

United
We'd be invincible
So rise up
And shake off our chains

Feel
The power
Streaming out
Through our souls

Now's
The hour
Come together
And let's roll....

http://www.countercurrents.org/ulrich080710.htm

IF, you are still in denial about Zionists controlling the media here, you might want to check this out:

"Who Really Owns the Media in 2010?" at http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=493

And here are a few excerpts from David Icke's "The Zionist Elephant in the Room": "Look also at the Zionist (Rothschild) control of the entertainment and media industry in the form of people like Fox News President Peter Chernin (Zionist); Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Zionist); Walt Disney CEO Robert Igor (Zionist); Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (Zionist); Warner Brothers Chairman Barry Meyer (Zionist); CBS CEO Leslie Moonves (Zionist); MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Zionist); and NBC/Universal Studios CEO Jeff Zucker (Zionist)."...

"And not only Hollywood. Shahar Ilan, a daily features editor with the leading Israeli newspaper, Ha'aretz, wrote: 'The Jews do control the American media. This is very clear, and claiming otherwise is an insult to common knowledge'.

Zionists have truly massive influence over the news media with the likes of Rupert Murdoch (Zionist) with his vast television and newspaper empire, and the Sulzberger family (Zionists) who own the New York Times. The list is enormous across television, radio, newspapers and the Internet.

When you look at the number of Zionists in key positions of power and control in politics, banking, corporations, news media, Hollywood and so on, it is sobering to think that Jewish people are just 1.7% of the American population and many of those won't be Zionists.

What if the same situation happened with Arab people or Chinese, Irish or even black Americans? There would be an outcry and questions asked about how one group can have so much influence over the lives of a whole nation, indeed many nations. And I stress again that, in the end, this control system leads to the Rothschilds and the spider they represent at the center of the web."

Did you notice that the Israelis even write in their papers about the FACT that they control the media over here??????

How about this quote from Ariel Sharon: "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."

- Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001.

So, is anyone an anti-semite for talking about Jewish power in America?

The Rothschilds (those "Jewish bankers" who don't exist, the ones you are an anti-semite for talking about) even brag about how this nation is controlled by the Zionists. They also brag about how they control Canada. Here's a quote from Adam Rothschild (of the Jewish banking family that doesn't exist):

from http://inpursuitofhappiness.wordpress.com/2010/06/05/2939/

Adam Rothschild calls the Prime Minister of Canada a slave!

If you read the series of posts below, taken from Facebook, you will see several comments from Adam Rothschild. In response to the post from Eric Issac, Rothschild declares;

“CJPAC owns your country; Stephen Harper is like a slave”.

CJPAC is the Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee, and Stephen Harper is the Prime Minister of Canada. At the bottom of the screen-shot Adam Rothschild makes another post:

“May Yahweh bless the CJPAC with control of the Canadian Government just like the AIPAC controls the United States

AM YISRAEL CHAI!!

-Adam R.”

I guess that Adam Rothschild in another antisemite for talking about how the Zionists control this nation, right??

"They are the so-called neo-cons, or neo-conservatives. A compact group, almost all of whose members are Jewish. They hold the key positions in the Bush administration, as well as in the think-tanks that play an important role in formulating American policy and the ed-op pages of the influential newspapers....

Seemingly, all this is good for Israel. America controls the world, we control America. Never before have Jews exerted such an immense influence on the center of world power." Uri Avnery, "The Night After,"
Counterpunch, April 10, 2003.

"I've never seen a President — I don't care who he is — stand up to them. It just boggles the mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing anything down. If the American people understood what a grip these people have got on our government, they would RISE UP IN ARMS. Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on."

Thomas H. Moorer (1912 - 2004)
Admiral, US Navy & Chairman,
Joint Chiefs of Staff during interview on
24 August 1983.

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

SEC: US Government Destroyed Documents Regarding Pre-9/11 [ inside Job] Put Options


On September 19, 2001, CBS reported:
Sources tell CBS News that the afternoon before the attack, alarm bells were sounding over unusual trading in the U.S. stock options market.

An extraordinary number of trades were betting that American Airlines stock price would fall.

The trades are called "puts" and they involved at least 450,000 shares of American. But what raised the red flag is more than 80 percent of the orders were "puts", far outnumbering "call" options, those betting the stock would rise.

Sources say they have never seen that kind of imbalance before, reports CBS News Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. Normally the numbers are fairly even.

After the terrorist attacks, American Airline stock price did fall obviously by 39 percent, and according to sources, that translated into well over $5 million total profit for the person or persons who bet the stock would fall.

***

At least one Wall Street firm reported their suspicions about this activity to the SEC shortly after the attack.

The same thing happened with United Airlines on the Chicago Board Options Exchange four days before the attack. An extremely unbalanced number of trades betting United's stock price would fall — also transformed into huge profits when it did after the hijackings.

"We can directly work backwards from a trade on the floor of the Chicago Board Options Exchange. The trader is linked to a brokerage firm. The brokerage firm received the order to buy that 'put' option from either someone within a brokerage firm speculating, or from one of the customers," said Randall Dodd of the Economic Strategy Institute.

U.S. investigators want to know whether Osama bin Laden was the ultimate "inside trader" — profiting from a tragedy he's suspected of masterminding to finance his operation. Authorities are also investigating possibly suspicious trading in Germany, Switzerland, Italy and Japan.
On September 29, 2001, the San Francisco Chronicle pointed out:

"Usually, if someone has a windfall like that, you take the money and run," said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Whoever did this thought the exchange would not be closed for four days.

"This smells real bad."

***

There was an unusually large jump in purchases of put options on the stocks of UAL Corp. and AMR Corp. in the three business days before the attack on major options exchanges in the United States. On one day, UAL put option purchases were 25 times greater than the year-to-date average. In the month before the attacks, short sales jumped by 40 percent for UAL and 20 percent for American.

***

Spokesmen for British securities regulators and the AXA Group also confirmed yesterday that investigations are continuing.

The source familiar with the United trades identified Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown, the American investment banking arm of German giant Deutsche Bank, as the investment bank used to purchase at least some of the options.

***

Last weekend, German central bank president Ernst Welteke said a study pointed to "terrorism insider trading" in those stocks.
On October 19, 2001, the Chronicle wrote:
On Oct. 2, Canadian securities officials confirmed that the SEC privately had asked North American investment firms to review their records for evidence of trading activity in the shares of 38 companies, suggesting that some buyers and sellers might have had advance knowledge of the attacks.
***

FMR Corp. spokeswoman Anne Crowley, said her firm -- which owns the giant Fidelity family of mutual funds in Boston -- has already provided "account and transaction" information to investigators, and had no objection to the new procedures announced yesterday. Crowley declined to describe the nature of the information previously shared with the government.

So the effort to track down the source of the puts was certainly quite substantial.

What were the results of the investigation?

Apparently, we'll never know.

Specifically, David Callahan - executive editor of SmartCEO - submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the SEC regarding the pre-9/11 put options.

The SEC
responded:
We have been advised that the potentially responsive records have been destroyed.
If the SEC had responded by producing documents showing that the pre-9/11 put options had an innocent explanation (such as a hedge made by a smaller airline), that would be udnerstandable.

If the SEC had responded by saying that the documents were classified as somehow protecting proprietary financial information, I wouldn't like it, but I would at least understand the argument.

But destroyed? Why?

Not the First Time

This is not the first destruction of documentary evidence related to 9/11.

I
wrote in March:
As I pointed out in 2007:
The 9/11 Commission Report was largely based on a third-hand account of what tortured detainees said, with two of the three parties in the communication being government employees.

The official 9/11 Commission Report states:

Chapters 5 and 7 rely heavily on information obtained from captured al Qaeda members. A number of these "detainees" have firsthand knowledge of the 9/11 plot. Assessing the truth of statements by these witnesses-sworn enemies of the United States-is challenging. Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place. We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the reporting.

In other words, the 9/11 Commissioners were not allowed to speak with the detainees, or even their interrogators. Instead, they got their information third-hand.

The Commission didn't really trust the interrogation testimony. For example, one of the primary architects of the 9/11 Commission Report, Ernest May, said in May 2005:

We never had full confidence in the interrogation reports as historical sources.
As I noted last May:

Newsweek is running an essay by [New York Times investigative reporter] Philip Shenon saying [that the 9/11 Commission Report was unreliable because most of the information was based on the statements of tortured detainees]:

The commission appears to have ignored obvious clues throughout 2003 and 2004 that its account of the 9/11 plot and Al Qaeda's history relied heavily on information obtained from detainees who had been subjected to torture, or something not far from it.

The panel raised no public protest over the CIA's interrogation methods, even though news reports at the time suggested how brutal those methods were. In fact, the commission demanded that the CIA carry out new rounds of interrogations in 2004 to get answers to its questions.

That has troubling implications for the credibility of the commission's final report. In intelligence circles, testimony obtained through torture is typically discredited; research shows that people will say anything under threat of intense physical pain.

And yet it is a distinct possibility that Al Qaeda suspects who were the exclusive source of information for long passages of the commission's report may have been subjected to "enhanced" interrogation techniques, or at least threatened with them, because of the 9/11 Commission....

Information from CIA interrogations of two of the three—KSM and Abu Zubaydah—is cited throughout two key chapters of the panel's report focusing on the planning and execution of the attacks and on the history of Al Qaeda.

Footnotes in the panel's report indicate when information was obtained from detainees interrogated by the CIA. An analysis by NBC News found that more than a quarter of the report's footnotes—441 of some 1,700—referred to detainees who were subjected to the CIA's "enhanced" interrogation program, including the trio who were waterboarded.

Commission members note that they repeatedly pressed the Bush White House and CIA for direct access to the detainees, but the administration refused. So the commission forwarded questions to the CIA, whose interrogators posed them on the panel's behalf.

The commission's report gave no hint that harsh interrogation methods were used in gathering information, stating that the panel had "no control" over how the CIA did its job; the authors also said they had attempted to corroborate the information "with documents and statements of others."

But how could the commission corroborate information known only to a handful of people in a shadowy terrorist network, most of whom were either dead or still at large?

Former senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, a Democrat on the commission, told me last year he had long feared that the investigation depended too heavily on the accounts of Al Qaeda detainees who were physically coerced into talking ....

Kerrey said it might take "a permanent 9/11 commission" to end the remaining mysteries of September 11.

Abu Zubaida was well-known to the FBI as being literally crazy. The Washington Post quotes "FBI officials, including agents who questioned [alleged Al-Qaeda member Abu Zubaida] after his capture or reviewed documents seized from his home" as concluding that he was:
[L]argely a loudmouthed and mentally troubled hotelier whose credibility dropped as the CIA subjected him to a simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding and to other "enhanced interrogation" measures.
For example:

Retired FBI agent Daniel Coleman, who led an examination of documents after Abu Zubaida's capture in early 2002 and worked on the case, said the CIA's harsh tactics cast doubt on the credibility of Abu Zubaida's information.

"I don't have confidence in anything he says, because once you go down that road, everything you say is tainted," Coleman said, referring to the harsh measures. "He was talking before they did that to him, but they didn't believe him. The problem is they didn't realize he didn't know all that much."

***

"They said, 'You've got to be kidding me,' " said Coleman, recalling accounts from FBI employees who were there. " 'This guy's a Muslim. That's not going to win his confidence. Are you trying to get information out of him or just belittle him?'" Coleman helped lead the bureau's efforts against Osama bin Laden for a decade, ending in 2004.

Coleman goes on to say:
Abu Zubaida ... was a "safehouse keeper" with mental problems who claimed to know more about al-Qaeda and its inner workings than he really did.

***

Looking at other evidence, including a serious head injury that Abu Zubaida had suffered years earlier, Coleman and others at the FBI believed that he had severe mental problems that called his credibility into question. "They all knew he was crazy, and they knew he was always on the damn phone," Coleman said, referring to al-Qaeda operatives. "You think they're going to tell him anything?"

ACLU, FireDogLake's Marcy Wheeler and RawStory broke the story yesterday that (quoting RawStory):

Senior Bush administration officials sternly cautioned the 9/11 Commission against probing too deeply into the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, according to a document recently obtained by the ACLU.

The notification came in a letter dated January 6, 2004, addressed by Attorney General John Ashcroft, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and CIA Director George J. Tenet. The ACLU described it as a fax sent by David Addington, then-counsel to former vice president Dick Cheney.

In the message, the officials denied the bipartisan commission's request to question terrorist detainees, informing its two senior-most members that doing so would "cross" a "line" and obstruct the administration's ability to protect the nation.

"In response to the Commission's expansive requests for access to secrets, the executive branch has provided such access in full cooperation," the letter read. "There is, however, a line that the Commission should not cross -- the line separating the Commission's proper inquiry into the September 11, 2001 attacks from interference with the Government's ability to safeguard the national security, including protection of Americans from future terrorist attacks."

***

"The Commission staff's proposed participation in questioning of detainees would cross that line," the letter continued. "As the officers of the United States responsible for the law enforcement, defense and intelligence functions of the Government, we urge your Commission not to further pursue the proposed request to participate in the questioning of detainees."

Destruction of Evidence

The interrogators made videotapes of the interrogations. The 9/11 Commission asked for all tapes, but the CIA lied and said there weren't any.

The CIA then destroyed the tapes.

Specifically, the New York Times confirms that the government swore that it had turned over all of the relevant material regarding the statements of the people being interrogated:

“The commission did formally request material of this kind from all relevant agencies, and the commission was assured that we had received all the material responsive to our request,” said Philip D. Zelikow, who served as executive director of the Sept. 11 commission ....

“No tapes were acknowledged or turned over, nor was the commission provided with any transcript prepared from recordings,” he said.

But is the destruction of the tapes -- and hiding from the 9/11 Commission the fact that the tapes existed -- a big deal? Yes, actually. As the Times goes on to state:
Daniel Marcus, a law professor at American University who served as general counsel for the Sept. 11 commission and was involved in the discussions about interviews with Al Qaeda leaders, said he had heard nothing about any tapes being destroyed.

If tapes were destroyed, he said, “it’s a big deal, it’s a very big deal,” because it could amount to obstruction of justice to withhold evidence being sought in criminal or fact-finding investigations.

Indeed, 9/11 Commission co-chairs Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton wrote:
Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation.
The CIA also is refusing to release any transcripts from the interrogation sessions. As I wrote a year ago:

What does the fact that the CIA destroyed numerous videotapes of Guantanamo interrogations, but has 3,000 pages of transcripts from those tapes really mean?

Initially, it means that CIA's claim that it destroyed the video tapes to protect the interrogators' identity is false. Why? Well, the transcripts contain the identity of the interrogator. And the CIA is refusing to produce the transcripts.

Obviously, the CIA could have "blurred" the face of the interrogator and shifted his voice (like you've seen on investigative tv shows like 60 Minutes) to protect the interrogator's identity. And since the CIA is not releasing the transcripts, it similarly could have refused to release the videos.

The fact that the CIA instead destroyed the videos shows that it has something to hide.

Trying to Create a False Linkage?

I have repeatedly pointed out that the top interrogation experts say that
torture doesn't work.

As I
wrote last May:

The fact that people were tortured in order to justify the Iraq war by making a false linkage between Iraq and 9/11 is gaining attention.

Many people are starting to understand that top Bush administration officials not only knowingly lied about a non-existent connection between Al Qaida and Iraq, but they pushed and insisted that interrogators use special torture methods aimed at extracting false confessions to attempt to create such a false linkage.

Indeed, the Senate Armed Services Committee found that the U.S. used torture techniques specifically aimed at extracting false confessions (and see this).

And as Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times:

Let’s say this slowly: the Bush administration wanted to use 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So it tortured people to make them confess to the nonexistent link.

[A]ccording to NBC news:
  • Much of the 9/11 Commission Report was based upon the testimony of people who were tortured
  • At least four of the people whose interrogation figured in the 9/11 Commission Report have claimed that they told interrogators information as a way to stop being "tortured."
  • One of the Commission's main sources of information was tortured until he agreed to sign a confession that he was NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO READ
  • The 9/11 Commission itself doubted the accuracy of the torture confessions, and yet kept their doubts to themselves
In fact, the self-confessed "mastermind" of 9/11 also confessed to crimes which he could not have committed. He later said that he gave the interrogators a lot of false information - telling them what he thought they wanted to hear - in an attempt to stop the torture. We also know that he was heavily tortured specifically for the purpose of trying to obtain false information about 9/11 - specifically, that Iraq had something to do with it.

***

Remember, as discussed above, the torture techniques used by the Bush administration to try to link Iraq and 9/11 were specifically geared towards creating false confessions (they were techniques created by the communists to be used in show trials).

***

The above-linked NBC news report quotes a couple of legal experts to this effect:

Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, says he is "shocked" that the Commission never asked about extreme interrogation measures.

"If you’re sitting at the 9/11 Commission, with all the high-powered lawyers on the Commission and on the staff, first you ask what happened rather than guess," said Ratner, whose center represents detainees at Guantanamo. "Most people look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a trusted historical document. If their conclusions were supported by information gained from torture, therefore their conclusions are suspect."...
Karen Greenberg, director of the Center for Law and Security at New York University’s School of Law, put it this way: "[I]t should have relied on sources not tainted. It calls into question how we were willing to use these interrogations to construct the narrative."
The interrogations were "used" to "construct the narrative" which the 9/11 Commission decided to use.

Remember (as explored in the book
The Commission by respected journalist Philip Shenon), that the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission was an administration insider whose area of expertise is the creation and maintenance of "public myths" thought to be true, even if not actually true. He wrote an outline of what he wanted the report to say very early in the process, controlled what the Commission did and did not analyze, then limited the scope of the Commission's inquiry so that the overwhelming majority of questions about 9/11 remained unasked (see this article and this article).

***

As constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley stated:

[The 9/11 Commission] was a commission that was really made for Washington - a commission composed of political appointees of both parties that ran interference for those parties - a commission that insisted at the beginning it would not impose blame on individuals.

Other Obstructions of Justice

[Other examples of obstructions of justice include the following:]
  • The chairs of both the 9/11 Commission and the Joint Inquiry of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees into 9/11 said that government "minders" obstructed the investigation into 9/11 by intimidating witnesses
  • The 9/11 Commissioners concluded that officials from the Pentagon lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements
  • Investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House. As the New York Times notes:
    Senator Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who is a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, accused the White House on Tuesday of covering up evidence . . .

    * * *

    The accusation stems from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's refusal to allow investigators for a Congressional inquiry and the independent Sept. 11 commission to interview an informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who had been the landlord in San Diego of two Sept. 11 hijackers.

    In his book "Intelligence Matters," Mr. Graham, the co-chairman of the Congressional inquiry with Representative Porter J. Goss, Republican of Florida, said an F.B.I. official wrote them in November 2002 and said "the administration would not sanction a staff interview with the source.'' On Tuesday, Mr. Graham called the letter "a smoking gun" and said, "The reason for this cover-up goes right to the White House."

We don't need to even discuss conspiracy theories about what happened on 9/11 to be incredibly disturbed about what happened after: the government's obstructions of justice.

Indeed, the 9/11 Commissioners themselves are disturbed:
  • The Commission's co-chairs said that the CIA (and likely the White House) "obstructed our investigation"
  • The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) - who led the 9/11 staff's inquiry - said "At some level of the government, at some point in time...there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened". He also said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is not spin. This is not true."