By: Gregory Wilpert – Venezuelanalysis.com
Caracas, November 1, 2004—Preliminary results of the National Electoral Council (CNE), which were presented to Venezuela at about 1am of November 1st, indicate that pro-Chavez forces won at least 18 of the country’s 22 state governorships. In several cases the vote was still to close to call. In others, where the CNE indicated that Chavez supporters had won, opposition candidates declared that the CNE results were wrong and that they had won.
In one of the most important and contested races, for the state governorships of Miranda, Chavez’s right hand man, Disdado Cabello, appears to have won with 53% of the vote. The Miranda campaign took on special importance because the current governor, Enrique Mendoza, who ran for reelection, was one of the opposition’s main leaders and one of its presidential hopefuls against Chavez. Mendoza, in a speech he gave right after the preliminary results were announced, said that the CNE results were wrong and that according to his calculations from the print-outs of the voting machines he won the vote.
Similarly, in another highly contested race, for the governorship of Carabobo state, in which the current opposition governor, Henrique Salas Feo, the son of another main opposition leader, Henrique Salas Römer, is said to have lost against Chavez loyalist Felipe Acosta Carles with 48% to 50% of the vote. Salas Feo, however, also said that their count of the voting centers show that he won. Carabobo results could still change because the preliminary results are fairly close and not all votes have been counted yet.
The opposition did win clearly in Zulia, also a very important state, where Manuel Rosales, the current governor won reelection with 55% of the vote against the pro-Chavez challenger.
The only other state that the opposition won decidedly was Nueva Esparta, which is the vacation Island of Margarita, where the current pro-Chavez governor was defeated by the opposition candidate Morel Rodriguez with 51% of the vote to 43% for the incumbent.
Another state, which is traditionally an opposition stronghold, Yaracuy, appears to be too close to call, even though the CNE gave the pro-Chavez candidate a slight lead.
In the very important mayor races of the capital of Caracas, Juan Barreto, the Chavez supporter, won the Greater Caracas mayoralty with 62% of the vote against 38% for the former mayor and former presidential candidate Claudio Fermin. In the largest Caracas city district of Libertador, incumbent Mayor Freddy Bernal beat his challengers decisively with 74% of the vote.
Results for the mayor’s races still have to be announced, but it is estimated that pro-Chavez forces should be able to double their representation from about one third of the 335 mayor positions to about two-thirds.
Chavez, in a victory speech he held in front of the Miraflores presidential palace, said, “We have entered into a new phase. Venezuela has changed forever.”
This is the ninth national vote in Venezuela since 1998, in which Chavez and his “Bolivarian” supporters won decisively.
El chavismo ganó 20 de las 22 gobernaciones en disputa
Publicado el Lunes, 01/11/04 05:54am
Chávez: La Revolución llegó para siempre al amanecer de este día
Publicado el Lunes, 01/11/04 05:53am
Reelegido Manuel Rosales y empate técnico en Maracaibo
Publicado el Lunes, 01/11/04 09:01am
International comment: We will watch the USA slowly collapse just like the Roman Empire...
THE INTERNATIONAL FORECASTER editor Bob Chapman says he has received correspondence from VHeadline.com readers and others following his e-publications perspicacious coverage of political and economic affairs south of the Rio Grande. In this week's issue he relays a representative sample:
Dear Mr. Chapman:
Greetings. I am writing to you in response to your article published on VHeadline, Oct. 24, 2004 entitled: "It is no wonder that Venezuela is loading up on military hardware......"
I am an American living and working in Maracaibo for the past 10.5 years. I agree completely with what you said in your article. I particularly agree with the following observation that you made,
" Americans have totally lost control of their country ... many Americans are disillusioned and shocked but do nothing to bring about changes."
You are correct, but you also need to remember that most Americans are brainwashed now due to the "dumbing of America" and due to the disinformation that the American government has fed the public for decades over all of the controlled broadcast networks, magazines, and newspapers. If someone openly and publicly began to criticize and talk about all of the dirty and corrupt things that the US government does overseas, then that person would probably be assassinated in a short period of time. You know that political opposition to the US government is not tolerated within the borders of the USA, nor is anything anti US government or anything very critical of the US government broadcasted in any of the news media unfortunately. That really is not freedom of speech (right to be informed truthfully) is it?
Most Americans that I talk to are not interested in international politics or what the US government criminally does overseas. The few people that are interested in maintaining a conversation about international politics do not understand or do not want to believe what really evil things the US government does overseas or how it abuses its power. Heck, I bet that less than 25% of Americans couldn’t even find Iraq on a map right now! As you said, Americans have totally lost control of their country, and as such, nothing can be done now short of a Revolution to save the Nation from an evil and corrupt government that has control from top to bottom. Otherwise, we will watch the USA slowly collapse just like the Roman Empire. I hope that I live to see the day that the US government falls and is returned to the good and noble American people!
In another letter received from a non-subscriber to The International Forecaster, Bob Chapman remarks that he believes readers should see:
“This is a reply to the contention that because the National Guard (GN) has confiscated huge amounts of cocaine in Venezuela in the last year, that the government must be encouraging the Colombian narcos to use Venezuela as a staging post, and thus is a form of discrediting the Venezuelan government internationally.
The 53 tonnes of cocaine caught by the GN is really a success story compared to previous years. You cannot assume that this has anything to do with Chávez, as there is simply no evidence. It is really not correct to assume that the government is living off drug money. This has not even been mentioned in the worst moments of the opposition press, to my knowledge.
There are two explanations for this amount of drugs being discovered: either the GN is doing its job properly, or Plan Colombia is working in Colombia.
When I was in Bogotá in July, I was told that the drug smuggling is gradually being displaced from Colombia to bordering countries due to the pressure of Plan Colombia on the narcos, guerillas, AUC - call them what you will. Thus, it is not surprising that Brazil caught much more drugs in transit as well - and no one is accusing Lula of bring an accomplice in this filthy trade - so why Chávez? The same thing has happened in Ecuador and also in Venezuela. This is the real explanation, and not because it suits someone’s purpose to take an objective fact and use it to discredit the government, the FAN or the President.
There is far more hard evidence for my explanation than the other one espoused, which really sounds like part of the disinformation campaign I have mentioned so often.”
P. O. Box 510518, Punta Gorda, FL 33951, USA
Bob Chapman firstname.lastname@example.org
Gobierno de Bush manipula la ciencia y censura a los científicos para favorecer a las multinacionales
Por: La gran prensa oculta que la salud de la población de EE.UU está en peligro
Publicado el Domingo, 31/10/04 03:17pm
"Ya soy candidato para las elecciones
presidenciales en el 2006 y vamos a ganar con 10 millones de votos",
reiteró el presidente Hugo Chávez Frías durante su
visita de este
jueves a la capital del estado Mérida, a la vez que
recomendó a todos
los candidatos del bloque del cambio a no estancarse en sus acciones de
gobierno una vez que alcancen las gobernaciones y alcaldías el
Aunque destacó la importancia de primero cumplir de forma eficiente con su actual período constitucional, ya comunicó su participación en los próximos comicios presidenciales. En este sentido dijo a gobernadores y alcaldes:
"estoy en los dos últimos años de mi gobierno y éstos son los iniciales de quienes triunfen el 31 de octubre", de allí que comentó que durante este tiempo hay que adelantar una labor conjunta para presentar un exitoso trabajo.
Por ello, se debe seguir trabajando para que cuando revisemos la historia podamos decir que estos años fueron benditos por el salto adelante que ha dado nuestro país.
"No podemos estancarnos porque si lo hacemos nuestra revolución corre peligro, los líderes debemos continuar dándole fortaleza a nuestro motor interno que es la pasión por la revolución", dijo.
El presidente Chávez exigió que "esta nueva etapa tiene que caracterizarse por los avances más rápido y exitosos en la transformación del modelo económico", dada su importancia para el logro de los objetivos del proceso que comanda.
-Todavía pervive el capitalismo, modelo perverso que nos impusieron para explotar a nuestro pueblo y entregar nuestra riqueza, asumámoslo así en el marco de nuestro nuevo modelo económico", reiteró.
Seguidamente ante la multitud merideña enfatizo que "nuestro país será una pequeña gran potencia moral, económica y social", tras citar una frase del Libertador Simón Bolívar para definir el sueño de todos: "Veremos a Venezuela sentada sobre el trono de la justicia, coronada por la gloria".
Su visita a la región andina fue para entregar 142 créditos a pequeños y medianos productores, además de reiterar su apoyo irrestricto al candidato a la reelección, Florencio Porras así como a los alcaldes de los municipios que conforman la jurisdicción merideña.
"Cándido como las palomas y astutos como las serpientes, así deben ser los líderes de la revolución, para entenderla y defenderla en el terreno que sea", les recordó el jefe de Estado a los diversos candidatos del sector oficialista.
By: Robin Nieto - Venezuelanalysis.com
Caracas, October, 29, 2004—The streets of beachside town Higuerote in Barlovento with its predominant African culture and fishing economy is a world away from the affluent municipality of Baruta, but both are part of the state of Miranda. With a population of more than 2 ½ million, Miranda is the second largest state in Venezuela in terms of population.
Constituents will be going to the polls to vote for either the incumbent opposition governor Enrique Mendoza or challenger Diosdado Cabello, a loyal right hand man of President Hugo Chavez.
At stake in this race is the political career of the long time Miranda politician Mendoza, who is also a populist leader of the opposition forces against President Chavez. Mendoza at one time was a presidential hopeful and a spokesman for a coalition of political parties against the president during the referendum.
Mendoza began his political career in Miranda more than 20 years ago as a city councilor in the municipality of Sucre and worked his way up to Mayor and then governor of Miranda in 1995.
Contender Diosdado Cabello is a former military officer turned politician who proved himself as a loyal Chavez supporter during the attempted coup against Chavez (April 2002), a national oil strike (Dec.2002 – Feb.2003), and presidential referendum (Aug.2004). He has held different posts in the Chavez government including, Vice-President, Minister of the Interior and Justice, and Minister of Infrastructure.
With little experience behind him as a Miranda state politician, Chavez supporters in Miranda say that his greatest asset is the backing of their president. Antonio Prieto in Higuerote runs Radio Brion Libre, a community radio station. Prieto is a strong supporter of Chavez´s Bolivarian revolution. He says that he, like many in the region of Barlovento, will be voting for Cabello but admits that even if Cabello wins, politics in Miranda will not change. “I will vote for him and the people of Barolovento will vote for Diosdado, but the politics of the past will remain the same,” the telecommunication technician said.
In Cua, a Miranda municipality of about 133,000 people, Fanny Martinez, an artisan, says she will vote for Cabello. “Even though he hasn’t done anything for the state because he hasn’t been in power, he holds a lot of promise for us,” the handicrafts maker said. Martinez said she like many people in the state will vote for a candidate that backs President Chavez. “The great majority of people who will vote, will do it for Chavez,” Martinez said, “without Chavez, these candidates would be nobodies.”
The lukewarm enthusiasm expressed by Chavez supporters for their candidate is in sharp contrast to the election fervor of the referendum in August where record numbers of supporters voted to keep Chavez as president. However in Miranda, support for Chavez was just 51 per cent.
During these elections, wide-spread abstention is expected on both sides of the political fence because of the weak positions set up by both candidates in elections that still continue to be based on a Chavez-centered agenda, rather than on state-centered platforms.
While the Chavez side is running low on energy, the Mendoza camp is trying to prevent abstention in the ranks due to dissatisfaction with opposition leadership following the presidential referendum.
“Abstention does not punish the opposition,” Mendoza said yesterday in a public event in the wealthy district of Altamira promoting candidates for the “Primero Justicia” (Justice First) party, “it glorifies the government.”
In the upscale municipality of Baruta, Marvi Moreno says she will vote for Mendoza because she does not want a Cuba styled dictatorship in Venezuela, which is what Chavez represents, but stresses that her reasons for voting for Mendoza goes beyond his opposition to Chavez. “He speaks the same the language of the people. He doesn’t work behind closed doors. He´s a populist,” Moreno says. “If he would have ran for president, I would have voted for him then as well.”
During this unpredictable race in Miranda, one thing is certain: Mendoza as an opposition heavyweight has far more to lose during this election than Cabello, who even with a loss will continue on in the Chavez government.
However, a loss for Mendoza would mean an end to his political career, a loss for an already fractured opposition camp and further control of the National Assembly for Chavez legislators.
By: Richard Smith
Disagreements in the Venezuelan opposition ranks as whether to vote or not in Sunday’s (31st October) regional elections for state governors, mayors and councils are also confusing the general public. Opposition spokesmen are predicting electoral fraud even before the elections have taken place and on this basis, advising their supporters not to vote, as it is a waste of time. It may be just coincidental that part of the opposition is supporting abstention as a strategy, as did Chávez in the 1994 presidential elections, which had the lowest voter turnout in Venezuelan democratic history.
On the other hand, in states and municipalities that are bastions of the opposition such as Carabobo and Zulia states, or in the well-off municipalities in the east of Caracas such as Baruta and Chacao, there has been no withdrawal of opposition candidates since the pre-electoral polls are favourable for them, and thus spokesmen from this wing of the opposition are calling everyone out to vote.
Basically, if you don´t vote, then don´t complain about the results
The intransigent attitude of the opposition towards the validation of the 15th August referendum result which Chávez won handsomely has been the deciding factor in the refusal of the Carter Center and the OAS not to attend these Regional Elections as international observers. The OAS was fine as long as it played the opposition game of brokering agreements with the government to respect and hold the presidential recall referendum and when Gaviria was attending secret meetings with representatives of the almost defunct Democratic Coordinator But when it took a stand based on hard evidence and ratified the referendum result, they are suddenly “clowns”. The real “clowns” are those still crying “fraud” or “future fraud” when no hard evidence has been produced to prove this contention, other than theories about a Russian hacker and a Japanese satellite being used to change the results, as presented in the Súmate report to the National Electoral Council.
What is the outlook for these Regional elections?
Forecasts vary depending on the government spokesmen, as the opposition has not published any national predictions. William Lara, a member of the Comando Maisanta (the government command set up to get voters out to the electoral centres) for example, is taking a conservative stance, as he is predicting 200 out of 337 municipalities for the government side. César López, a MVR parliamentarian, predicted 300 out of the 337 municipalities in a live TV interview yesterday (Thursday 28th October), and 20 out of the 22 state governorships up for grabs to be won by the government. The fact is that Chávez is fully aware that, in order to advance the social missions that are the cornerstone of his democratic revolution, then these missions will have to be run on a municipal basis for efficiency reasons, as will be the Bolivarian University of Venezuela if it is to penetrate the depths of the population that could never obtain a university place.
Thus, the government coalition needs to win as many municipalities as possible, especially in parts of the country where the dispossessed live and the missions are vital to improve overall quality of life. Coordination from mayor, through the state governor to the Executive is needed, to prevent the missions being sabotaged at local level, and cause resentment in the recipients, almost all of whom are “chavistas”. This is precisely the reason why in his recent speeches up and down the country that Chávez has emphasized a “war to the death” on corruption of local officials and the “importance of quality and efficiency” in the revolution as postulated by Ernesto Guevara.
Potential problems and sabotage on elections day
The Bolivarian Military Front denounced a plan on late night TV that a minority opposition grouping intends to discredit the elections by not depositing the paper receipt in the ballot box after realizing their automated vote. The strategy here is to create a situation whereby the cross check of votes cast via the voting machines, will not tally with the paper receipts in the ballot box, thus creating “electoral fraud”, which the local media can hype up and give reasons to the opposition not to recognize the results.
(My own view is that the opposition will not recognize the results anyway, especially if they lose any of their traditional bastions and more importantly because they have already laid the ground to cry “fraud” well before the 15th August recall referendum.)
The electronic results of one machine chosen at random from each voting centre will be checked against the paper votes cast and deposited in the ballot box. This is one way of safeguarding against any type of electronic fraud being committed.
Other plans afoot and published in the local media is that voters will stay at the voting centres all day and force the opening of all the ballot boxes at the close of the polls, so as to “check for fraud”, even though this has not been authorized by the Elections Council. The idea here is to create chaos, record TV pictures and show the “brutality and human rights violations” of the soldiers of the Republic Plan trying to restore order.
Almost a month ago, one opposition spokesmen proposed throwing the electronic voting machines on the floor as a protest against the “fraud” on elections day!!?? This was one way of protesting. I received a mail talking about a little known organization called the Democratic Front inviting people to revolt or engage in acts of civil disobedience on elections day, due to the “fraud”, and other talk about blocking the main thoroughfares in Caracas so that people could not get to the voting stations - a sort of enforced abstention, if you like.
The Minister of Defence, Jorge García Carneiro, stated in an interview that attempts at disruption or sabotage will be dealt with by arresting the culprits caught red handed.. The last resort left for the opposition is to refuse to relinquish a state governorship or municipality if they lose it – once again due to the “fraud”. Chávez said in his TV programme on Sunday that anyone acting in this way will be arrested and imprisoned.
To readers not living in Venezuela the above threats of chaos may sound unreal or far fetched. However, to understand this attitude it is necessary to reflect upon recent contemporary Venezuelan history.
First of all, in the 1998 presidential elections, when it became clear that Chávez would win, the opposition withdrew two of its main candidates (Alfaro Ucero and Irene Saez) and all their votes were allocated to the main contender Henrique Sales Romer, so that it was all against one with the connivance of the then Elections Council – does this sort of tactic sound democratic to you, living in the US? Should Nader’s votes have been added to those of Gore in 2000 or Kerry now?
Other examples of non-democratic acts by the opposition: the April 2002 coup d’etat and derogation of all institutions and the 1999 Constitution, the December 2002 – February 2003 lock-out, oil industry sabotage, pirating the PDVSA oil tanker fleet, the policy of withholding information by the private TV channels and the refusal to report hardly anything which could be construed as positive for the government.
This is the democratic attitude of the ex ruling classes in Venezuela, simply because they just cannot stand losing either their privileges or elections – thus it is always fraud from their point of view, if they lose. The only options that will be left open to them after October 31st are: invasion by the US marines or assassinate Chávez, and both these options will be directly contingent on the results of the US elections on 2nd November.
Not going to vote is thus a continuation of the lack of democratic belief by the extreme groupings of the opposition, and a denial of the democratic process which they claim to uphold. Their behaviour and tactics since 1998 has been anything but democratic, and now it is being poorly disguised under the pretext of the “fraud” banner. Where is the evidence? I am still waiting for it since 16th August.
The moderate, democratic majority of the opposition will go and vote on 31st October and they do not believe this garbage about “fraud”. They also know that they represent 40% of the voting public based on the results of the presidential referendum, which is a decent base to work from. The fact is that the lack of serious leadership in the opposition ranks has provoked undemocratic attitudes to be repeated and covered on a regular basis in the mass media, which due to the amount of commentary dedicated to this standpoint, appear to represent the norm. The opposition voters should make their presence felt and if they prefer to abstain, they should then accept the fact that the government will take almost all the spoils.
On a longer term basis this may not be a bad thing since it will oblige the opposition to reorganize itself and perhaps new leaders with a positive democratic vision and patriotic attitudes will emerge, with an alternative plan for the country.
In the meantime, confusion will continue to reign until the results
of the Regional elections are published. I would guess that someone,
somewhere already has a videotape ready denouncing “fraud”. This is
contemporary Venezuela and these tactics using the biased private media
are also the norm to manipulate public opinion against the government,
the National Elections Council, the Supreme Tribunal and any other
public institution acting in an unbiased way, which does not appear to
favour the interests of the opposition.
|Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey|
Les Roberts, Riyadh Lafta, Richard Garfield, Jamal Khudhairi, Gilbert BurnhamSummary Background In March, 2003, military forces, mainly from the USA and the UK, invaded Iraq. We did a survey to compare mortality during the period of 14·6 months before the invasion with the 17·8 months after it. Methods A cluster sample survey was undertaken throughout Iraq during September, 2004. 33 clusters of 30 households each were interviewed about household composition, births, and deaths since January, 2002. In those households reporting deaths, the date, cause, and circumstances of violent deaths were recorded. We assessed the relative risk of death associated with the 2003 invasion and occupation by comparing mortality in the 17·8 months after the invasion with the 14·6-month period preceding it. Findings The risk of death was estimated to be 2·5-fold (95% CI 1·6-4·2) higher after the invasion when compared with the preinvasion period. Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Falluja. If we exclude the Falluja data, the risk of death is 1·5-fold (1·1-2·3) higher after the invasion. We estimate that 98000 more deaths than expected (8000-194000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is included. The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of death. Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. The risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher (95% CI 8·1-419) than in the period before the war. Interpretation Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths. We have shown that collection of public-health information is possible even during periods of extreme violence. Our results need further verification and should lead to changes to reduce non-combatant deaths from air strikes. See Comment
|Published online October 29, 2004.|
Published: Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Bylined to: Franz J. T. Lee
Franz J. T. Lee, The global Orwellian Empire in the making
University of Los Andes (ULA) professor Franz J. T. Lee writes: In his classic, 1984 ... written around 1948 ... George Orwell, mutatis mutandis gave us a very precise picture of what is happening currently on a worldwide scale. Although this work could be classified as a novel or an utopia, its subject matter is an excellent prediction of the current state of world affairs.
There are hundreds of erudite interpretations and commentaries with reference to this outstanding work; here we will just page through the book, and highlight some interesting predictions that concern Venezuela and the Bolivarian Revolution vis-a-vis the current North American Fourth Empire in the making.
Now, using present tense, let us page willy-nilly through Orwell's 1984 and here and there reflect on some of his trans-historic thoughts.
In embryo, what the current Republican Bush administration has in mind is ... precisely what Orwell so eloquently has described ... to create an omnipotent, elitist, Orwellian "Party" that obeys no international law, that has a complete disregard for the United Nations and that is trampling with bloody army boots on its very own democratic "Bill of Rights" and Constitution.
We visit Winston Smith, the main actor of this drama, who like an orthodox Marxist, scribbles the following on a paper: "If there was hope it must lie in the proles, because only there, in those swarming disregarded masses, eighty-five per cent of the population of Oceania could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated. The Party could not be overthrown from within. Its enemies, if it had any enemies, had no way of coming together or even of identifying one another. " (p. 60)
The current Patriot Acts, the militarization of the USA, the "war of ideas," "full spectrum dominance" and global info-war see to it that no "change from within" ... from within the USA ... is possible in the immediate future.
In fact, excluding some valiant exceptions, the majority of the United States "proles" are so mind- and thought-controlled, that next month indirectly they will elect their own "bushers" ... sorry ... their own butchers themselves.
Concerning proletarian class consciousness, very little has survived the ideological onslaught, especially of the major mass media in the USA. Surely, the global matrix of how" 85% of the population" of Venezuela has acquired a pre-revolutionary class consciousness in April 2002 ... that is, within 47 hours, cannot be found in obsolete political propaganda, revolutionary classics or theories.
Of course, like so many of us, the trans-historic Winston still dreams about educating, about conscientizing the proletariat, the working classes, the poor, the masses: "...the proles, if only they could somehow become conscious of their own strength would have no need to conspire. They needed only to rise up and shake themselves like a horse shaking off flies. If they chose they could blow the Party to pieces tomorrow morning. Surely sooner or later it must occur to them to do it. And yet - !" (p. 60)
Nonetheless, Winston is aware of the reigning opinions of the ruling classes, of the oligarchs, living around "Plaza Francia," what they ... and their forefathers since centuries ... understand by "slave emancipation" and "liberation" ... what the Big Brothers, Bush, Cheney, Powell and Rumsfeld understand by liberating the Iraqis ... and what many of our national and international scholars repeat in their academic text-books:
"The Party claimed, of course, they have liberated the proles from bondage. Before the revolution they had been hideously repressed by the capitalists, they have been starved and flogged, women have been forced to work in the coal mines (women still did work in the coal mines, as a matter of fact), children had been sold into the factories at the age of six." (p. 61)
And what did Plato, Aristotle, Voltaire, Montesquieu and all power-hungry rulers really think about the "mob," about the "crowd," about the "chusma," the "gentusa," the "man-in-the-street"?
"But, simultaneously, true to the principles of doublethink , the Party taught that the proles were natural inferiors, who must be kept in subjection, like animals, by the application of a few simple rules. In reality very little was known about the proles. It was not necessary to know much. So long as they continued to work and breed, their other activities were without importance. Left to themselves, like cattle turned loose on the plains of Argentina, they had reverted to a style of life that appeared to be natural to them, a sort of ancestral pattern. They were born, they grew up in the gutters, they went to work at twelve, they passed through a brief blossoming period of beauty and sexual desire, they married at twenty, they were middle-aged at thirty, they died, for the most part, at sixty. Heavy physical work, the care of home and children, petty quarrels with neighbors, films, football, beer, and, above all, gambling filled up the horizon of their minds. To keep them in control was not difficult." (p. 61-62)
In comparison, Winston reads Mrs. Parson's "children's history text-book" that explains what was happening in Britain, at the time of the "Glorious Revolution," at the eve of capitalism, long before the coming into existence of the "Globe," of "Oceania," of "Globalization":
"In the old days ... London was not the beautiful city that we know today. It was a dark, dirty, miserable place where hardly anybody had enough to eat and where hundreds and thousands of poor people had no boots on their feet and not even a roof to sleep under. Children no older than you are had to work twelve hours a day for cruel masters, who flogged them with whips if they worked too slowly and fed them on nothing but stale bread crusts and water. But in among all this terrible poverty there were just a few great big beautiful houses that were lived in by rich men who had as many as thirty servants to look after them. These rich men were called capitalists.
The chief of all the capitalists was called the King, and..." (p. 62-63)
Now, we ask:
What happens when one tries to act and think independently?
How does one feel?
How is one being seen by the rest of the world?
As we stated in a previous commentary, with reference to the deepening of the Bolivarian Revolution, what happens when the masses begin to act, think and excel independently of, by and for themselves? Well, we gave the answer, like in the case of Wilhelm Reich, the world declares one as being "insane," ripe for the "loony bin" and then one ends up as a jailbird.
Winston "wondered, as he had many times wondered before, whether he himself was a lunatic. Perhaps a lunatic was simply a minority of one. At one time it had been a sign of madness to believe that the earth goes round the sun; today, to believe that the past is unalterable. He might be alone in holding that belief, and if alone, then a lunatic. But the thought of being a lunatic did not greatly trouble him; the horror was that he might also be wrong." (p. 68)
Here, Winston challenges religious and ideological "absolute truths," even his very own ones, and he thought that it would be better for the clandestine "brotherhood," if he should be mistaken. As madman, he would be the first to recognize his own mistakes.
Yes, long live the lonely, lonesome "lunatics" of the unglobalized, uncivilized world!
Now, rectifying the myopic eyes of loyal, affirmative, systemic ideologues, of the academic lackeys of corporate imperialism, that just associate Orwell's critique exclusively with Communists, Stalinists and Nazis, let us look at O'Brien's views concerning Winston's Newspeak articles in the "Times".
Take note: not in the "Pravda" or in the "Volkszeitung"!
Questioningly, O'Brien, the mouthpiece of "Big Brother", says to Winston: "You take a scholarly interest in Newspeak I believe?" He continued: " ... in your article I noticed you had used two words which have became obsolete. "
What follows now is of great interest to those who love to declare anything that displeases them, or that does not fit in their world outlook or life style, as "obsolete." For example, Marxism or Socialism. O'Brien continues: "Some of the new developments are ingenious. The reduction in the number of verbs - that is the point that will appeal to you."
This is how language is being used to manipulate and indoctrinate the masses, and why words should not think for us, for Bolivarian revolutionaries. They are just miserable tools of thought. We have to think ourselves, and there is no substitute for real, true thought.
Concerning thinking and language, Winston is being informed:
"We're getting the language into its final shape - the shape it's going to have when nobody speaks anything else. When we've finished with it, people like you will have to learn it all over again. ... We're destroying words - scores of them, hundreds of them, every day". (p.45)
"It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words (in other words, of thinking), of course, the wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of, as well". (p.45)
Now, if you take a "verb" out of a sentence, obviously you can only express "peace," standstill, rest, the status quo. Everything you say is then possible, is positive, justification, affirmation and defense of universal global fascism.
Furthermore, Winston has to learn:
"Do you know, that Newspeak is the only language in the world, whose vocabulary gets smaller every year?". (p.46)
Later conversing with Winston and Julia, O'Brien explains, what "doublethink," mind and thought control, eventually would achieve. Of course, Orwell somehow camouflaged these objectives, directing them towards the "Party."
As we know, in reality, across the 20th century, this is precisely what the GESTAPO, KGB, M15, CIA, etc. were doing, and also what is being practiced today, more than ever, across the globe, using most sophisticated mind-control technology and thought-control methods.
Anybody who already had applied for a job at any secret intelligence agency, surely would know how to cite the following routine questions and answers by heart.
The following gives us an idea of how paramilitary personnel are being recruited, trained and smuggled into Venezuela to violently overthrow the Bolivarian democratic government.
Here is the CIA recipe:
"You are prepared to give your lives?
You are prepared to commit murder?
To commit acts of sabotage which may cause the death of hundreds of innocent people?
You are prepared to cheat, to forge, to blackmail, to corrupt the minds of children, to distribute habit-forming drugs, to encourage prostitution, to disseminate venereal diseases -- to do anything which is likely to cause demoralization and weaken the power of the Party?
You are prepared to lose your identity and live out the rest of your life as a waiter or clock worker?
You are prepared to commit suicide, if and when we order you to do so?
Yes. " (p. 142)
Concerning the everlasting existence of "Big Brother," who can only be toppled from within, in total desperation, Winston asks O'Brien the following questions:
"Does Big Brother exist?
Of course, he exists. The Party exists. Big Brother is the embodiment of the Party.
Does he exist in the same way as I exist?
You do not exist. ...
I think I exist. ...
It is of no importance. He exists.
Will Big Brother ever die?
Of course not. How could he die?" (p. 214)
Big Brother will never die. This is exactly the opinion of all staunch believers in the capitalist system, that fervently believe in the current New World Order, in Globalization; that believe that "Power," "Labor Power" would never die. But let us allow O'Brien to explain "Power" -- i.e., Capital, to Winston:
"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness; only power, pure power. "
This is what the coming North American "Fourth Reich" is all about ... this is the belligerent hegemony that the USA is exercising currently on a world scale.
In its emancipatory quintessence, the major task of the Latin American Bolivarian Revolution is precisely to stop this global fascism.
And then O'Brien let Schrödinger’s Cat out of the capitalist-imperialist Pandora Box:
"The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. ... Power is not a means, it is an end. ... The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. " (p. 217)
Well, is this not what the Bush administration, the CIA and the Pentagon are practicing in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo, Palestine, and elsewhere? Is this not what the "Opposition" in Venezuela had in mind with their coup, in 2002, fostered and financed by Washington?
Then O'Brien informs Winston about the future projects of "Big Brother":
"We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull. You will learn by degrees, Winston. There is nothing that we could not do.
Invisibility, levitation - anything. I could float off this floor like a soap bubble if I wished to. I do not wish to, because the Party does not wish it. ... We make the laws of nature." (p. 218)
This is what we warned about Mind Control, about the current abuse of the technology of Nikola Tesla and Wilhelm Reich, about HAARP, about scalar and ELF waves, about the dangerous arms of mass destruction, about a probable, planned genocide of billions of obsolete, global, manual labor forces.
This is not a crazy "Big Brother," not a mentally deranged Hitler or a mad Stalin speaking here. It is a highly probable, stark, dark, coming reality. Iraq is just a premonition of worse things to come. Hence, Orwell has warned us about our limited knowledge concerning our "reality," about our "Governments," about our "Party," about the "Illuminati" and about the level of contemporary scientific-technological secret projects.
He also indicated why then, in the 1940s, the Party did not wish to make public Tesla and Reich Technology. Also note that Big Brother or the Party are neither "Communist" nor "Nazi"; they form a global "Brotherhood": for them, "Oceania is the World"! (p. 218)
Finally, showing the dangerous limits of our knowledge about current global realities, already applying Tesla Technology, O'Brien lets more cats out of his bag; concerning space travel, communities and colonization, he explains:
"What are the stars? ... They are bits of fire a few kilometers away. We could reach them if we wanted to. or we could blot them out. ... The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them. ... Have you forgotten doublethink? " (p. 219)
According to Big Brother, Winston Smith is the only "human being" left on Planet Earth, and the drama is about the destruction of this last historic ray in the "fatherland".
As can be seen below, some of Orwell's "prophecies" were more accurate than those of the Oracle of Delphi, or of any modern "Horoscope":
"War is Peace," "Freedom is Slavery," "Ignorance is Strength."
Concerning mind and thought control, Winston writes:
"To the future or to the past, to a time, when thought is free, when men are different from one another, and do not live alone - to a time when truth exists and what is done cannot be undone" (p.26).
Hereby, Winston is protesting against the declaration of Big Brother, that thinking, thought, theory and philosophy are capital crimes, especially in a world of action, of cement, of concrete, of activism, where theory and philosophy have been sent to the ideological asylum. This is why Lenin stressed: Without Theory (not without Ideology), no Revolution!
Winston confirms that he had been taught, been mind-controlled, that:
"Thoughtcrime does not entail death, thoughtcrime IS death."
Concerning the national and international conspiracy against Venezuela, the lies propagated in the mass media, in the news of CNN, of Globovision, of Venevision, in brief, in the Illuminazi News, already from Orwell, we can learn the following:
"The Party said, that Oceania had never been in alliance with Eurasia. He, Winston Smith, knew, that Oceania had been in alliance with Eurasia as short a time as four years ago. But where did that knowledge exist?" (p.34).
Interesting, here we can already see the Petro-Dollar Zone against the future Petro-Euro Zone, the United States ("Oceania") versus "Eurasia," which is the economic essence of Bush's current "New World Wars." Iraq is just the "collateral damage" of this coming world conflagration.
For sure, in Big Brother's Empire, the truth disappears from all the data bases and "new knowledge" is being fabricated - surely, this will be changed again tomorrow, depending on the global and "globalized" interests of Big Brother, who teaches:
"Who controls the past, controls the future; who controls the present, controls the past."
Then the Party member unveils the objectives of Mind Control, of Thought Control, of Ideology, of Newspeak:
"Don't you see, that the whole aim of newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end, we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words, in which to express it." (p.46)
Concerning the current completion of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, in the field of language, ideology and mind control, Winston is being told:
"The Revolution (sic!) will be complete, when the language is perfect. ... By the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive, who could understand such a conversation as we are having now." (p.47)
Winston immediately wants to mention an exception, that the proletariat will still understand us, but the Party member suspects his train of thought and instantly says:
"The proles are not human beings." (p. 47)
This is precisely what the oligarchs think about the impoverished masses, about the "recogelatas", about the "tin-collectors" of Venezuela and the Caribbean.
So we see, the rulers have never considered the poor or the workers as human beings; all that they considered human along "history" were only themselves. Aristotle considered the poor, the slaves, to be "speaking-tools"; Big Brother considers them here to be "newspeak-tools".
How Big Brother, how Globalization, how Post-Industrial Society, will complete the process of controlling the billions of "proles", Winston himself gets a taste of it:
"We shall crush you down to the point, from which there is no coming back. ... Never again will you be capable of ordinary human feeling. Everything will be dead inside you.
Never again will you be capable of love, or friendship, or joy of living, or laughter, or curiosity, or courage, or integrity. You will be hollow. We shall squeeze you empty, and then we shall fill you with ourselves." (p.211).
Then O'Brien, the Party member, explains the "world of fear and treachery," of Corporate Capitalism of the 21st Century to Winston:
"A world of fear and treachery and torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but MORE merciless, as it refines itself. Progress in our world will be progress towards more pain. ... In our world, there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph and self-abasement. Everything else we shall destroy." (p.220)
Finally, when Winston claims to be a "man", a human being, O'Brien corrects him:
"If you are a man, Winston, you are the last man. Your kind is extinct - we are the inheritors. Do you understand,, that you are ALONE? You are outside history, you are non-existent." (p.222)
In total capitulation, finally Winston asks:
"Tell me, how soon will they shoot me?"
Cynically, O'Brien answers:
"Don't give up hope ... in the end, we shall shoot you." (p.226).
Studying Orwell and Huxley very carefully, gives us an inkling of an idea what is currently happening in Globalization. This commentary is intended to wake us up, at the eleventh hour, to understand Trotsky's clarion call: dum spiro spero -- as long as I breathe, I hope.
However, as my university teacher, the Marxist philosopher, Ernst Bloch, has taught us: Hope is made of stern, adamant stuff, is making, thinking and surpassing the permanent world revolution, is victorious emancipation.
See: George Orwell, 1984, The New American Library of World Literature, New York, 1961.
Franz J. T. Lee
Franz John Tennyson Lee, Ph. D (University of Frankfurt), Author, Professor Titular & Chairholder of Philosophy and Political Science, University of The Andes, Merida (Venezuela) -- http://www.franzjutta.com ; http://www.franz-lee.org ; http://www.geocities.com/juttafranz/publications00001.html
More VHeadline.com commentaries by
Franz J.T. Lee
|Traducido para Rebelión por Germán Leyens|
Nota del editor de Global Research:
Llamamos la atención de nuestros lectores sobre este importante artículo de Wayne Madsen. Según las fuentes de la Casa Blanca citadas por Madsen, la administración Bush tiene la intención de comenzar “una peligrosa guerra con Irán antes de las elecciones y temen que una acción semejante provocará funestas consecuencias para todo el mundo. Las fuentes también informan que se ha preparado un borrador de un propuesto discurso televisado de Bush a la nación para explicar el ataque”.
Las implicaciones del informe de Wayne Madsen son de gran alcance. Ataques de precisión contra Irán – con la participación directa de Israel. – podrían provocar una extensión de la guerra a toda la región de Medio Oriente. Según un artículo reciente en Los Angeles Times, “Israel puede tener a Irán en su mira... Si la diplomacia falla, el Estado judío podría recurrir a los militares para atacar cualquier programa de armas nucleares”. El gobierno de Ariel Sharon no dudaría en lanzar una operación militar, si Teherán se negara a cerrar su instalación de enriquecimiento de uranio. Sobra decir que este guión de la participación militar israelí es planificado en estrecha coordinación con el Pentágono.
23 de octubre de 2004.
Según personas informadas de la Casa Blanca y de los círculos gubernamentales en Washington, la administración de Bush, preocupada por una posible derrota en la elección presidencial, ha hecho planes para lanzar un ataque militar contra la máxima dirección islámica de Irán, su reactor nuclear en Bushehr en el Golfo Pérsico, sus objetivos nucleares clave en todo el país, incluyendo la principal instalación subterránea de investigación en Natanz en el centro de Irán y otra en Isfahán. Los objetivos del ataque planeado por EE.UU. incluyen, según los informes, mezquitas en Teherán, Qom e Isfahán donde es de conocimiento de EE.UU. que se encuentran los principales ulemas de Irán.
El plan de ataque contra Irán fue, según los informes, elaborado después de que sondeos internos indicaron que si la administración Bush lanzaba un llamado ataque contraterrorista contra Irán unas dos semanas antes de la elección, Bush tendría segura una victoria aplastante contra Kerry. Informes sobre un ataque preventivo contra Irán llegan junto con preocupaciones de una serie de observadores políticos de que la administración Bush podría tramar una “Sorpresa de Octubre” para influenciar el resultado de la elección presidencial.
Según fuentes de la Casa Blanca, el portaaviones USS John F. Kennedy fue llevado al Mar de Omán para coordinar el ataque contra Irán. El secretario de defensa, Donald Rumsfeld, discutió el papel del Kennedy en el ataque planificado contra Irán cuando visitó el barco en el Mar de Omán el 9 de octubre. Rumsfeld y los ministros de defensa de los socios en la coalición de EE.UU., incluyendo a los de Albania, Azerbaiján, Bahrein, Bulgaria, República Checa, Dinamarca, Estonia, Georgia, Hungría, Irak, Latvia, Lituania, Macedonia, Mongolia, Polonia, Qatar, Rumania y Ucrania discutieron brevemente una visión a “muy alto nivel” de posibles operaciones militares por doble vía paralela en Irán e Irak en una “sala de guerra” especial establecida a bordo del portaaviones. El principal aliado de EE.UU. en Irak, el Reino Unido, no asistió a la sesión de planificación porque se dice que no está de acuerdo con un ataque militar contra Irán. Londres también sospecha que EE.UU. desea transferir tropas británicas de Basora en el sur de Irak al área de Bagdad para ayudar a reprimir un recrudecimiento de la violencia chií en Sáder City y otras áreas chiíes en el centro de Irak cuando EE.UU. ataque a Irán, así como para preparar el camino para un ataque militar de EE.UU. a través de la frontera iraquí-iraní con la intención de asegurar las inmensas instalaciones petroleras iraníes en Abadán. Los aliados de EE.UU. Corea del Sur, Australia, Kuwait, Jordania, Italia, Holanda y Japón también fueron excluidos de las discusiones de planificación en el USS John F. Kennedy por su presunta oposición a todo ataque contra Irán.
Además, Israel ha recibido de Estados Unidos 500 bombas “revienta búnkeres”. Según fuentes de la Casa Blanca, la Fuerza Aérea israelí atacará la instalación nuclear de Irán en Bushehr con las “revienta búnkeres” de EE.UU. en tres olas, y la protección mediante interferencia de radar y comunicaciones sería asegurada por AWACS de la Fuerza Aérea de EE.UU. y otros aviones de EE.UU. en el área. La acción militar preventiva conjunta EE.UU.-israelí contra Irán fue ideada por el mismo grupo neoconservador en el Pentágono y la oficina del vicepresidente Dick Cheney que preparó la invasión de Irak.
La moral a bordo del USS John F. Kennedy está en su punto más bajo, algo que puede ser atribuible al conocimiento de que el barco se verá involucrado en una extensión de las acciones militares de EE.UU. en la región del Golfo Pérsico. El oficial al mando de un escuadrón de F-14 Tomcat fue relevado de su puesto por una supuesta “indiscreción” durante un permiso en tierra en Dubai y hace dos meses el comandante al mando del Kennedy fue relevado por causa justificable. El Kennedy está en la región del Golfo junto con el Grupo Expedicionario de Ataque Essex, que consiste de la Unidad Expedicionaria 31 de la Marina que se encuentra a bordo de los navíos USS Essex, USS Juneau, USS Harpers Ferry, USS Mobile Bay, USS Hopper, y del USS Preble.
La filtración de la Casa Blanca sobre el ataque planificado contra Irán fue adelantada por preocupación de que los técnicos rusos presentes en Bushehr pudieran ser matados en un ataque, resultando así en una confrontación nuclear más amplia entre Washington y Moscú. Representantes de la Organización Internacional de Energía Atómica se encuentran también presentes en la instalación de Bushehr. Además, un ataque inmediato con misiles balísticos Shahab iraníes contra Israel desestabilizaría aún más Medio Oriente. Las filtraciones de la Casa Blanca sobre el ataque preventivo podrían haber sido provocadas por advertencias de la CIA y de la Agencia de Inteligencia de la Defensa de que un ataque contra con Irán escalaría fuera de control. Círculos de inteligencia informan que ambas agencias de inteligencia se oponen abiertamente a la Casa Blanca de Bush.
Fuentes de la
Casa Blanca también afirmaron que estaban
“aterrorizadas” por la posibilidad de que Bush inicie una peligrosa
guerra con Irán antes de la elección y temen que una
semejante tendría consecuencias nefastas para todo el mundo. Las
fuentes también informan que se ha preparado un borrador de un
propuesto discurso televisado de Bush a la nación para explicar
23 de octubre de 2004
----------------Wayne Madsen es un periodista de investigación de Washington y editor colaborador de Global Research. Sirvió en el Consejo Nacional de Seguridad (NSA por sus siglas en inglés) durante la administración Reagan y escribió la introducción de “Forbidden Truth”. Es co-autor, con John Stanton de "America's Nightmare: The Presidency of George Bush II." Su próximo libro se intitula: "Jaded Tasks: Big Oil, Black Ops, and Brass Plates." Su correo es: Wmadsen777@aol.com http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD410A.html
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD410A.html
Global Research Editor's note:
We bring to the attention of our readers this important article by Wayne Madsen. According to the White House sources quoted by Madsen, the Bush Administration has envisaged the possibility of starting "a dangerous war with Iran prior to the election and fear that such a move will trigger dire consequences for the entire world. The sources also report that a draft text of a proposed televised Bush speech to the nation to explain the attack has been prepared."
The implications of Wayne Madsen's report are far-reaching. Surgical strikes against Iran --involving the direct participation of Israel-- could unleash an extension of the war to the entire Middle East region.
According to a recent article in the Los Angeles Times, "Israel may Have Iran in Its Sights... If diplomacy fails, the Jewish state could call on military to strike any nuclear arms program." The government of Ariel Sharon would not hesitate in launching a military operation, if Tehran refused to shut down its uranium enrichment facility. Needless to say, this scenario of Israel's military involvement is planned in close coordination with the Pentagon.
A word of caution. The Bush administration as part of its war on terrorism agenda has envisaged a number of scenarios. The postponement of the November elections has also been envisaged by Homeland Security in response to a terrorist attack. (See Global research Selected References at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CRG408A.html )
The fact that surgical strikes againt Iran are envisaged, does not signify that they will take place prior to the elections.
What is important, is that these surgical strikes, however, are in the planning pipeline and that Israel is to play a role in the next phase of the war agenda. The underlying Iran scenario is consistent with the Administration's National Security doctrine. In fact, a military operation against Iran has been envisaged since the mid-1990s. (See John Stanton at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STA303B.html )
M. C. 24 October 2004
According to White House and Washington Beltway insiders, the Bush administration, worried that it could lose the presidential election to Senator John F. Kerry, has initiated plans to launch a military strike on Iran's top Islamic leadership, its nuclear reactor at Bushehr on the Persian Gulf, and key nuclear targets throughout the country, including the main underground research site at Natanz in central Iran and another in Isfahan. Targets of the planned U.S. attack reportedly include mosques in Tehran, Qom, and Isfahan known by the U.S. to headquarter Iran's top mullahs.
The Iran attack plan was reportedly drawn up after internal polling indicated that if the Bush administration launched a so-called anti-terrorist attack on Iran some two weeks before the election, Bush would be assured of a landslide win against Kerry. Reports of a pre-emptive strike on Iran come amid concerns by a number of political observers that the Bush administration would concoct an "October Surprise" to influence the outcome of the presidential election.
According to White House sources, the USS John F. Kennedy was deployed to the Arabian Sea to coordinate the attack on Iran. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld discussed the Kennedy's role in the planned attack on Iran when he visited the ship in the Arabian Sea on October 9. Rumsfeld and defense ministers of U.S. coalition partners, including those of Albania, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Iraq, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mongolia, Poland, Qatar, Romania, and Ukraine briefly discussed a very "top level" view of potential dual-track military operations in Iran and Iraq in a special "war room" set up on board the aircraft carrier. America's primary ally in Iraq, the United Kingdom, did not attend the planning session because it reportedly disagrees with a military strike on Iran. London also suspects the U.S. wants to move British troops from Basra in southern Iraq to the Baghdad area to help put down an expected surge in Sh'ia violence in Sadr City and other Sh'ia areas in central Iraq when the U.S. attacks Iran as well as clear the way for a U.S. military strike across the Iraqi-Iranian border aimed at securing the huge Iranian oil installations in Abadan. U.S. allies South Korea, Australia, Kuwait, Jordan, Italy, Netherlands, and Japan were also left out of the USS John F. Kennedy planning discussions because of their reported opposition to any strike on Iran.
In addition, Israel has been supplied by the United States with 500 "bunker buster" bombs. According to White House sources, the Israeli Air Force will attack Iran's nuclear facility at Bushehr with the U.S. bunker busters in three waves with the radar and communications jamming protection being provided by U.S. Air Force AWACS and other U.S. aircraft in the area.The joint U.S.-Israeli pre-emptive military move against Iran reportedly was crafted by the same neo-conservative grouping in the Pentagon and Vice President Dick Cheney's office that engineered the invasion of Iraq.
Morale aboard the USS John F. Kennedy is at an all-time low, something that may be attributable to the knowledge that the ship will be involved in an extension of U.S. military actions in the Persian Gulf region. The Commanding Officer of an F-14 Tomcat squadron was relieved of command for a reported shore leave "indiscretion" in Dubai and two months ago the Kennedy's commanding officer was relieved for cause. The Kennedy is in the Gulf region along with the Essex Expeditionary Strike Group, which consists of the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit which is aboard the USS Essex, USS Juneau, USS Harpers Ferry, USS Mobile Bay, USS Hopper, and USS Preble.
The White House leak about the planned attack on Iran was hastened by concerns that Russian technicians present at Bushehr could be killed in an attack, thus resulting in a wider nuclear confrontation between Washington and Moscow. International Atomic Energy Agency representatives are also present at the Bushehr facility. In addition, an immediate Iranian Shahab ballistic missile attack against Israel would also further destabilize the Middle East. The White House leaks about the pre-emptive strike may have been prompted by warnings from the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency that an attack on Iran will escalate out of control. Intelligence circles report that both intelligence agencies are in open revolt against the Bush White House.
White House sources also claimed they are "terrified" that Bush wants to start a dangerous war with Iran prior to the election and fear that such a move will trigger dire consequences for the entire world. The sources also report that a draft text of a proposed televised Bush speech to the nation to explain the attack has been prepared.
Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based intelligence analyst and a Global Research Contributing Editor.
He served in the National Security Council (NSA) during the Reagan Administration and wrote the introduction to Forbidden Truth. He is the co-author, with John Stanton of "America's Nightmare: The Presidency of George Bush II." His forthcoming book is titled: "Jaded Tasks: Big Oil, Black Ops, and Brass Plates." Madsen can be reached at Wmadsen777@aol.com
Email this article to a friend
To become a Member of Global Research
To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at Global Research's News and Discussion Forum , at http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/index.php
The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original Global Research (Canada) articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text & title of the article are not modified. The source must be acknowledged as follows: Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca . For cross-postings, kindly use the active URL hyperlink address of the original CRG article. The author's copyright note must be displayed. (For articles from other news sources, check with the original copyright holder, where applicable.). For publication of Global Research (Canada) articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: email@example.com
For media inquiries: firstname.lastname@example.org
Copyright WAYNE MADSEN, CRG 2004