Author
|
Topic: The Big Lie and the Big Boom
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
|
posted 25 June 2008 08:59 AM
I read an article recently (can't find it now) that asks "where is the anger?" It argues that anti-war movement has fizzled and can't figure out why. I think it fizzled and I think antipathy is the emotion of the present, because far too many were led to believe, and did believe, that the democratic process was the answer; that by electing Democrats in the US, sanity would prevail, the war in Iraq would be ended, and Bush and Cheney, et al, would face impeachment and maybe even prosecution. And then over the past two years, with a majority Democratic congress and slight majority senate advantage, the reality sank in. The democratic process is a fraud. The Democrats have been complicit in every crime, in every deceit, in every manipulation. There is no substantial difference between Democrats and Republicans. So where does that leave the citizen who opposed the war but believes in the system? Lost, I think. I think Americans must go through the process of recognizing and accepting that their democracy is dead before they can wrest control of their nation back from the oligarchs and warlords.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
|
posted 27 June 2008 11:37 AM
Yeah, it's a fraud. And how can I disagree with the result when I predicted the result: More of the same.Anyhoo ... Remember the news story about the briefcase of nuclear bomb secrets passed on to Iran and others? Well ... more of the Big Lie: quote: I bring up this history because during the entire time of my intense, somewhat intimate cooperation with the IAEA Action Team, one name that never entered into the mix was David Albright. Albright is the president of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS, an institute which he himself founded), and has for some time now dominated the news as the "go-to" guy for the U.S. mainstream media when they need "expert opinion" on news pertaining to nuclear issues. Most recently, Albright could be seen commenting on a report he authored, released by ISIS on June 16, in which he discusses the alleged existence of a computer owned by Swiss-based businessmen who were involved in the A.Q. Khan nuclear black market ring. According to Albright, this computer contained sensitive design drawings of a small, sophisticated nuclear warhead which, he speculates, could fit on a missile delivery system such as that possessed by Iran. I have no objection to an academically based think tank capable of producing sound analysis about the myriad nuclear-based threats the world faces today. But David Albright has a track record of making half-baked analyses derived from questionable sources seem mainstream. He breathes false legitimacy into these factually challenged stories by cloaking himself in a résumé which is disingenuous in the extreme. Eventually, one must begin to question the motives of Albright and ISIS. No self-respecting think tank would allow itself to be used in such an egregious manner. The fact that ISIS is a creation of Albright himself, and as such operates as a mirror image of its founder and president, only underscores the concerns raised when an individual lacking in any demonstrable foundation of expertise has installed himself into the mainstream media in a manner that corrupts the public discourse and debate by propagating factually incorrect, illogical and misleading information. In his résumé Albright prominently advertises himself as a "former U.N. weapons inspector." Indeed, this is the first thing that is mentioned when he describes himself to the public. Witness an Op-Ed piece in The Washington Post which he jointly authored with Jacqueline Shire in January 2008, wherein he is described as such: "David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector, is president of the Institute for Science and International Security." His erstwhile U.N. credentials appear before his actual job title. Now, this is not uncommon. I do the same thing when describing myself, noting that I was a former U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. I feel comfortable doing this, because it's true and because my résumé is relevant to my writing. In his official ISIS biography, Albright details his "U.N. inspector" experience as such: "Albright cooperated actively with the IAEA Action Team from 1992 until 1997, focusing on analyses of Iraqi documents and past procurement activities. In June 1996, he was the first non-governmental inspector of the Iraqi nuclear program. On this inspection mission, Albright questioned members of Iraq's former uranium enrichment programs about their statements in Iraq's draft Full, Final, and Complete Declaration." Now, as I have explained previously, I cooperated actively between 1992 and 1998 with the IAEA Action team, covering the same ground that David Albright claims to have. I do not doubt his assertion that he was in contact with the IAEA during the period claimed; I just doubt the use of the word actively to describe this cooperation. Maybe Albright was part of a top-secret "shadow" inspection activity that I was unaware of. I strongly doubt this. In 1992, when Albright states he began his "active cooperation" with the IAEA, he was serving as a "Senior Staff Scientist" with the Federation of American Scientists. That same year Albright, in collaboration with Frans Berkhout of Sussex University and William Walker of the University of St. Andrews, published "World Inventory of Plutonium and Highly Enriched Uranium," 1992 (SIPRI and Oxford University Press). From March 1991 until July 1992, Albright, together with Mark Hibbs, wrote a series of seven articles on the Iraqi nuclear weapons programs for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. The final three articles of this series, entitled "Iraq's Bomb: Blueprints and Artifacts," "Iraq: It's all over at Al Atheer" and "Iraq's shop-till-you-drop nuclear program," were in part based upon information provided to Albright and Hibbs by the IAEA in response to questions posed by the two authors. So far as I can tell, this is the true nature of David Albright's "active cooperation." Far from being a subject-matter expert brought in by the IAEA to review Iraqi documents, Albright was simply an outsider with questions.
http://www.truthout.org/article/the-nuclear-expert-who-never-was
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|